The Assembly met at 10:30 am (Speaker [Mr Maskey] in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes' silence.

Ministerial Statement

COVID-19: Restrictions on the Hospitality Industry

Alex Maskey: Members, I have received noticed from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister that they wish to make a statement. I welcome the fact that we have the First Minister here this morning to address the Assembly. It follows on from yesterday when we had two Ministers in to brief the Assembly. These are very important contributions to the Assembly, and I want to extend our appreciation to the members of the Executive for doing so.
Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that, in the light of the social distancing being observed by parties, the Speaker's ruling that Members must be in the Chamber to hear a statement if they wish to ask a question about it, has been relaxed. Members still have to make sure that their name is on the speaking list if they wish to be called. However, they can do that by rising in their place as well as by notifying the Business Office or the Speaker's Table directly. I remind Members to be concise in asking a question. It is not an opportunity for debate per se, and long introductions should be avoided.

Arlene Foster: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In compliance with section 52C(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I wish to make the following statement on recent steps taken by the Executive to try to prevent the spread of the coronavirus epidemic. These decisions have been taken against the following backdrop. Since the beginning of July, there has been a gradual, but sustained, rise in the number of positive COVID-19 tests. On Saturday, the Department of Health confirmed that a further 319 people in Northern Ireland had tested positive for coronavirus. Since then, a further 407 people have tested positive. Saturday was the highest daily tally reported since the pandemic began and brings the total number of confirmed cases reported to 10,949. In the past seven days alone, 1,513 cases have been diagnosed . Unfortunately, one death has been reported, bringing the death toll to 578. There are 51 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across Northern Ireland, with six in intensive care, and there are outbreaks of the virus in 28 care homes.
Evidence from the test, trace, protect programme tells us that a significant number of the COVID-19 cases are being acquired through household contacts and informal interactions in the community. Wherever people meet each other, there is a risk of transmission. That is why the Executive agreed that restrictions in domestic settings should be introduced to reduce community transmission occurring through indoor social gatherings in households. Initially, this was applied on a postcode basis but now applies to all areas of Northern Ireland. These restrictions are a necessary and proportionate approach to address the increasing number of COVID cases that we have witnessed since early July, and which have accelerated over the past weeks.
Positive case numbers are of serious concern to the Executive, the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) and the Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA). The numbers themselves, and the rate at which cases are doubling, should be a concern to all parts of our society, including the business sector and citizens. If allowed to continue, this will inevitably lead to an increase in hospital admissions and deaths, and that is something that we must try to minimise.
Building on the measures already in place, the Executive agreed last Thursday that a closing time of 11.00 pm should be applied to the hospitality sector. That will come into effect from midnight on Wednesday 30 September 2020 and apply to those parts of the hospitality sector that are subject to current regulations, including pubs, bars, restaurants and cafes as well as hotel and guesthouse bars. No alcohol or food will be served after 10.30 pm, and all customers must leave by 11.00 pm. In practice, that brings the normal closing times forward by half an hour, and there will be no late licences.
The intention behind the earlier closing time is that socialising later in the evening is considered to increase the risk of virus spreading because people adhere to the rules less strictly after consuming alcohol and in venues where they are used to mixing freely. There can be no exceptions to this, so weddings and other important social events will also be required to comply. From Thursday 24 September, all business that serve food or drink in England, Scotland and Wales have been required to shut at 10.00 pm under new measures that were introduced to control the rising rate of coronavirus, and that includes pubs, restaurants, cafes, social clubs, casinos and bingo halls.
The 10.00 pm closing time that had initially been imposed in certain areas of England became a nationwide restriction, and that is because of the need to ask people to further limit their social interactions. Sales of alcohol from off-licences and supermarkets in Northern Ireland already stop at 11.00 pm. That will help to ensure a consistent approach in border areas.
Some will make the point that pubs and bars closing at 11.00 pm will drive people to house parties, and we recognise that risk. However, house parties and gatherings in our homes are illegal. The restrictions already in place ban people from more than one household to be in a private dwelling or more than six people from no more than two households to be in a private garden.
The totality of the arrangements will be subject to enforcement. We do not want to go there. We would prefer that everyone works with us to have an impact on the spread of the virus. However, enforcement has a role, and we are working closely with the Police Service of Northern Ireland and local government to understand the issues from their perspective and the importance of community responses. Junior Ministers are working closely with the police and local government, and we will be looking at the fine levels that we have here as a matter of priority.
It is essential that business owners and members of the public adhere to these restrictions, which will help to reduce the length of time that the restrictions will need to be retained. We want to avoid more stringent measures, but we have been clear from the outset of the pandemic that we will put restrictions in place if we have to. We will do so carefully and with great thought to the social and economic impacts, but if we need to act, we will.
As always, we must continue to be extremely careful in all aspects of our lives, particularly for the medically vulnerable members of our community. We appreciate that this is a difficult time for everyone, and yet more restrictions are not what any of us wants. It is very important to say that, Mr Speaker. We cannot emphasise enough that the regulations are intended to protect you, to protect other people, to reduce the spread of infection and to bring the epidemic to an end as soon as possible. We assure the House that the restrictions will be kept under constant review and measures will be removed if possible, but, equally, they may be added to if necessary. We can all help to curb the spread of the virus by maintaining social distancing; maintaining good hand and respiratory hygiene; wearing face coverings; self-isolating immediately if we experience any symptoms, including a new persistent cough, a fever or a loss or change of smell or taste; seeking a test if we experience any of those symptoms; downloading the StopCOVID NI app; and complying with the restrictions in place. Our message is simple: if each and every one of us does our bit, we will help to bring the epidemic to an end sooner rather than later, and, by doing that, save lives.

Colin McGrath: I welcome today's statement from the Executive Office and the First Minister and the confirmation that it provides. Furthermore, I welcome the ability for us to be representatives here and ask questions and seek clarity on the decisions that have been taken. It is fairly obvious that we are facing a crisis in the pandemic; around 15% or 20% of the cases have been recorded in the past week alone. The First Minister detailed the new rules and regulations, which are welcome, in terms of assistance to try to curb that. Will she outline any discussions or considerations that there have been to giving help to businesses in the hospitality industry that are close to the edge as it is and may be pushed over it by the restrictions? I wonder where our Economy Minister is. She needs to deliver us not a reaction to what has happened but a concrete plan to help businesses and support those who will lose their livelihood and everything that goes with it because of the restrictions.

Arlene Foster: I thank the Committee Chair for his question. The Executive have been engaging quite closely with the hospitality sector, as he would expect us to do. We have taken a partnership approach with that sector throughout the pandemic, given the fact that it was told to close very early in the pandemic and has been one of the last sectors to reopen. We recognise all the pressures and strains that that puts on those businesses. It was because of our consciousness of the pressures that the hospitality sector is under, and also observing the 10.00 pm curfew in other parts of the United Kingdom and the way in which that has worked, that we decided to have an 11.00 pm curfew. We hope that that will allow businesses, particularly restaurants and hotels, to have a second sitting; one of the concerns that was raised with us around the 10.00 pm curfew was that it would not allow for two sittings in a restaurant. We hope that that now can happen. We have been listening very carefully to the hospitality sector.
The recovery piece is something that the Executive, as a whole, have been working on. We have agreed a tentative recovery framework and have been working with the Department of Finance. The Chair will know that, just last week, the Minister of Finance came forward with more allocations in respect of trying to fight COVID. There is still some money left in that budget to deal with some of the known unknowns that are yet to come before us. We know that things are going to get difficult for a lot of businesses, so we need to be prepared to try to work with those sectors when those difficulties come about.
I regret that we have had to make this announcement today. I think that we all do. However, we are trying to take an appropriate, proportionate reaction to what you pointed out: the rising number of cases right across Northern Ireland. When you put it in that very stark way — over 1,500 cases have been diagnosed in the past week — that is quite a significant rise, so it is important that we act in a proportionate way, listen to the voice of businesses and also put lives to the forefront of our mind. As well as saving lives, we should think about livelihoods. I take very much what the Chair has said. We will continue to work with him and his colleagues in the Committee as we step through what will be a very difficult time.

Trevor Clarke: I thank the Minister for coming to the House today with the statement. We have heard much about people complying and some not complying, but what is very much in people's minds is this: who will enforce the regulations?

Arlene Foster: Of course, right from the beginning of the pandemic, we have said to the people of Northern Ireland that we want to work in partnership with them. We want to work in partnership with the various sectors, such as the hospitality sector; citizens generally; and sports, for example. We are working very hard with those organisations. We have listened today to the threats to some of the Irish league teams because of the fact that they have no income coming in.
I noticed yesterday that the GAA was making a similar point about its funding.
We have been working very much in partnership with people, but, as I said in my statement, enforcement has a role to play. The junior Ministers are leading the enforcement group from the Executive. They are working with the Police Service of Northern Ireland and local government to make sure that we have, first, the appropriate powers in place. Do we need to revisit the level of fines that we have in place? I would much prefer people to work with us, comply with the restrictions and listen to the guidance, because it is for their own good. It is for individuals' own good. It is therefore important to take some responsibility for our actions.
You are right: enforcement plays a role in all of this, and we will have to deal with people who persistently offend through the appropriate authority, be that local government, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) or the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

Pat Sheehan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chéad-Aire as ucht an ráitis. I thank the First Minister for the statement this morning. Does she believe that the British Government's job support scheme is adequate to support workers who have to leave work to self-isolate?

Arlene Foster: There are two things there. First, for those who have to self-isolate, the Government have announced a package of £500 so that they can remain at home. To make sure that people in Northern Ireland can avail themselves of that, we still have to get more clarity on whether it is a Barnett consequential or is demand-led.
The Member asked about the job support scheme. Obviously, we knew that the furlough scheme was coming to an end. The Executive as a whole were concerned that that would lead to a cliff edge for those who were on the furlough scheme. The job support scheme is not as generous as the furlough scheme — I think that everyone has accepted that — but it at least allows us to move forward without there being a complete cliff edge. I am concerned for the industries affected. I met representatives from the events industry and outgoing travel industry representatives recently. Such companies basically have no work at this moment in time, so, under the job support scheme, they do not really have viable jobs for people to go to. I am therefore concerned about some of those industries, and we will need to see what we can do to help them. The job support scheme is not as good as the furlough scheme, but it is certainly better than having nothing at all with which to support industries in Northern Ireland.

John Stewart: I thank the First Minister for her statement. As you rightly said, the United Kingdom has a 10 o'clock curfew and the Republic of Ireland has 11.30 pm, while we have arrived at 10.30 pm and out for 11.00 pm. Can you give some clarity about how that time has come about? You can understand that the public and the sector will look at it thinking that times are almost being plucked out of the air. Why is there that variety across these islands, and why did the Executive decide on 10.30 pm for 11.00 pm?

Arlene Foster: It certainly was not plucked from the air. We looked at the experience in England, Wales and Scotland. I am sure that you will have noticed some of the television coverage over the weekend about people leaving bars at 10 o'clock, the crowds in the streets and what have you. We wanted to make sure that we aligned with off-licences and supermarkets, which stop selling alcohol at 11 o'clock. The allegation was made that people will leave the pub and go to a house party. They cannot go to a supermarket or off-licence to buy alcohol after, because the sale of alcohol stops at 11 o'clock. We felt that that was a good reason to close at 11 o'clock. We were conscious of the fact that the Republic of Ireland's curfew is at 11.30 pm, but we made an assessment that people would not travel across the border for such a short time.
That is why we chose the 11 o'clock curfew. There was a reasoned discussion amongst colleagues. The decision has the support of the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Scientific Adviser. We took a holistic approach and considered behaviour patterns: what will happen when people leave public houses, hotels, restaurants and what have you? That is why we arrived at the decision of 11 o'clock.

Andrew Muir: I thank the First Minister for coming to the House. It is a useful opportunity to get an update on the situation and to seek clarity. On 17 September, the Executive Office issued a statement in which it stated that beer bikes would not be permitted to operate, but, thus far, there has been no legislation or action to make that a reality. Will the First Minister outline what actions are being taken to make that a reality?

Arlene Foster: Beer bikes are a particular problem. We are considering how to deal with that problem, and officials will engage with the operators of those bikes. The Member is right to point out that beer bikes still need to be dealt with, and I hope that we can deal with them sooner rather than later. They are an anomaly that needs to be dealt with.

George Robinson: I thank the Minister for her statement. Why did the Executive not match the 10.00 pm closure time in England? How are Ministers trying to get the message through to young people and students?

Arlene Foster: I have responded to why we decided on 11.00 pm: it was because we considered all the different issues, such as ensuring that hospitality could have a second sitting if people were having food and making sure that we closed at the same time as off-licences and supermarkets for the sale of alcohol. We also took it into account that there was a small differential between us and the Republic of Ireland, which means that people should not travel across the border because of that differential, and, of course, we considered the experience of the 10.00 pm curfew on the mainland.
The Member is right to point out the need for us to have good messaging for young people. I addressed that yesterday at Question Time, and I believe that we need to reach them effectively. The Executive information service is engaging on new digital messaging and using radio stations such as Cool FM that the younger generation listens to — although I am partial to a bit of Cool FM myself, Mr Speaker. It is important that we use the appropriate platforms to reach our younger people, and we are certainly looking at that.

Martina Anderson: Minister, as we all know, Ireland is a single epidemiological unit, particularly for animal health, but I want to talk about human health. The Public Health Agency (PHA) has said that there is a cross-border protocol in place for tracking. As you know, the rate in Derry, Strabane and Donegal is alarming, yet doctors have said that they do not know about the protocol and are not using it. Are the Executive planning to increase tracking and tracing, particularly for cross-border workers who cross the border every day?

Arlene Foster: I heard the GP from, I think, Lifford make that very point about the tracking and tracing. I was a little surprised at that, because I had understood that our StopCOVID NI app was interoperable with the app in the Republic of Ireland. We will certainly look at that. I know that the Chief Medical Officer here and his counterpart in Dublin have been working closely on those issues. The deputy First Minister and I took calls from the Taoiseach last Thursday during which he alerted us to the issue in Donegal, and, after those calls, we immediately spoke to the Chief Medical Officer to make sure that there was that ongoing contact. We, of course, realise that a lot of people work in either jurisdiction. It is important that they can continue that work, but, at the same time, we must be able to track where the virus is and try to break transmission. That is the most important thing.

Pam Cameron: I thank the First Minister for her statement to the House. It is concerning that we have had over 1,500 new cases in the past week, so I welcome the clarification on closing times for establishments that serve alcohol and the inclusion of weddings. Minister, would it not be more appropriate for the Minister of Justice to take part in the enforcement group that has been set up?

Arlene Foster: Obviously, it would be inappropriate for me to answer on behalf of the Justice Minister, but I think that she took the view that the enforcement issues were wider than her ministerial portfolio, so she did not feel that it was appropriate to chair the group.
It is important that we have the group in place; we cannot allow things to be held back. The junior Ministers chair the enforcement group. It is highly important that that work continues. As the Member knows, I said yesterday that the Executive Office is meeting the universities today, and the enforcement group will continue to meet local government, our colleagues in the Police Service of Northern Ireland and all the other agencies that have a role in enforcement. Part of it is enforcement, but, again, I stress that it is important that everybody has responsibility for their own actions. Compliance is important as we run through what will be a difficult time for us all over the next couple of weeks and months.

Liz Kimmins: I thank the Minister for her statement. The issue of closing time for the hospitality industry is a clear example of the need for us to work on an all-Ireland basis in our response to COVID-19, particularly for people living in border areas. What engagement have the Executive had on that basis?

Arlene Foster: We were conscious of the 11.30 pm curfew in the Republic of Ireland and of what was happening on the UK mainland, but we have always said that we will take the decisions that are appropriate to Northern Ireland. That is what we have done in this regard. We have recognised that it might be a slightly later time in the Republic of Ireland, but, frankly, the time for travel is so short that we do not think that there is an incentive to go across the border to continue to seek alcohol. We have taken into consideration the different jurisdictions and the different experiences, while listening to our hospitality industry. I know that some in the hospitality industry will be disappointed by the announcement — we have heard from some this morning — but we are doing this to keep them open generally and to allow people to continue, albeit in a more limited way; I accept that. However, we hope that, if we take action now, we can stop the spread and the transmission and then, hopefully, deal with the issues in a progressive way so that we can return to normality more quickly. If we do not intervene now, things will get worse and we will have to take more punitive measures, and none of us wants to do that. We want to stop the transmission of the virus. That is the focus.

Pat Catney: I thank the First Minister for briefing the House. Responsible publicans are prepared to follow the regulations to the letter in order to keep people safe. The industry is one of our most highly regulated, and those involved know how best they can look after people in their premises. We have missed a trick. Given that last orders will be at 10.30 pm and off-sales will be open until 11.00 pm, does the First Minister have any concerns that people leaving the bars at 10.30 pm will be able to go to an off-sales, tank up with alcohol and head off to house parties? That is a major concern. It is a flaw in the regulations. The off-sales should have been closed before the bars, at 10.30 pm.

Arlene Foster: I recognise the Member's expertise in the area, but we believe that, if last orders are at 10.30 pm, you have drinking-up time until 11.00 pm. The off-licences close at 11.00 pm. If people decide to leave the bars at 10.00 pm and go to the off-licences, there is little that we can do about that. We are trying to have uniformity across the piece, and we think that having off-licences, supermarkets and all of the hospitality industry close at the same time gives uniformity and provides clarity. We have heard from people that, when there are different times, they are confused. We took time over this, and we took criticism for not announcing it last Thursday, but we were determined to get the regulations right and to make sure that we had clarity. That is why I wanted to come to the House today. I wanted to explain the thinking behind the regulations and to say that I believe that this is the best way forward. It is a reasoned way forward, and that is what we have put before the House.

Doug Beattie: Minister, it is not easy. They are difficult decisions, and I commend all those who are making the difficult decisions and showing that moral courage. I urge people to lean into those decisions.
I agree that enforcement is not always the answer, but it is an important tool. I am disheartened to see that only one Minister, the Minister of Health, actually attends that working group. Obviously, it is chaired by the junior Ministers. I want to follow up on a question from Pam Cameron. Was the Minister of Justice invited, by the Ministers or in writing, to chair the strategic working group on enforcement?

Arlene Foster: As I have said, I cannot answer for the Minister of Justice, and I am sure that you will raise this with the Minister directly. My understanding is that she did not want to chair the meeting because she felt that the remit of the enforcement group was wider than her departmental responsibilities. I think that that is patently the case. However, I say to all Ministers in the Executive that that enforcement group is open to anyone who wishes to come along. I pay tribute to the junior Ministers for the work that they have been doing, along with the Health Minister, on that committee. It is not an easy subject. We certainly do not want to be in a position to have to enforce any of this. We would much prefer it if people complied and worked with us, but, unfortunately, we have to have enforcement. Originally we were looking at some of the issues around the Holylands, but now that group is wider. As I say, any Minister can attend that meeting. We will ensure that the note is sent out from our office to any Minister who wants to attend, so that they can attend if desired.

Keith Buchanan: First Minister, there is a narrative and a following out there that this crisis does not exist, that it is a bad flu, and that it is all a Government hoax. What would you say to those individuals or those groups of people?

Arlene Foster: If they do not want to believe me, they can look at the data. As the Chair of the Committee rightly pointed out, the data is very clear. We have 1,513 new cases in the last seven days. At the height of the pandemic, we did not have that number of cases. It is not a hoax; it is a reality. If you speak to anyone who has been unfortunate enough to contract COVID-19, they will tell you very clearly that it is not a hoax. It is something that does not just impact on them during the time when they are feeling unwell; it stays with them for a considerable length of time as well. It has an impact on all your organs and is a very painful experience to go through — a very scary experience as well — sometimes, sadly, leading to death. So I say to people, if you do not individually feel that you are at risk, think of your family, think of your friends and think of those around you who are vulnerable. Please do not be selfish. Please do the right thing and abide by the guidance and the regulations that are there.

Colm Gildernew: In relation to the point that Keith Buchanan has just raised, I note that today, as a civilisation, we have crossed the horrendous threshold of 1 million deaths around the world from COVID-19, so it is clearly not false.
I acknowledge that, by and large, the majority of people are abiding by the restrictions, which are onerous in themselves at times, and we should recognise that. However, it is clear that the test-and-trace system, which is a key component of fighting this virus, has been under pressure in recent times and may well come under additional pressure as we move into the winter months. Are there any plans to develop and build bespoke additional capacity in the system here to deal with the pressures that we are now facing?

Arlene Foster: I thank the Member for his question, and he is right. I looked at some of the headlines in the newspapers this morning. It is a sobering thought that 1 million people have lost their lives to this pandemic across the world.
We have been very pleased with the way in which the test-and-trace system has been working, particularly in our care homes. We have been able to identify the fact that there has been COVID-19 in some of our care homes solely through our testing regime. I think that 24 out of the 28 care homes that were confirmed to have COVID in them were identified by the testing programme. That is progress. Obviously, we wish that it was not in any care homes. If the Health Minister comes to the Executive and says that he needs further resources for his testing programme, I think that he will have a very empathetic ear from the Executive. We will want to ensure that he has the resources available to him. If he does that, we will certainly listen to what he has to say.

Stewart Dickson: I thank the First Minister for coming to the House and making a statement. I welcome it. I invite the First Minister to also tell us what holistic approach the Executive are taking to deal with the totality of the pandemic in Northern Ireland. After all, the economy has been trashed. Public expenditure is out of control. Businesses are being destroyed. Thousands of patients have been denied life-saving treatment. Disabled people are unsupported. Children's futures have been mortgaged and damaged to the hilt. People's mental health and welfare is at risk. Dealing with one sector is important, but what is your holistic approach?

Arlene Foster: I thank the Member for that very good question. In our recovery framework, we have been considering how we listen to, sometimes, contrary narratives. We have been looking at economic well-being and societal well-being, including mental health and how we can ensure that we take action around that. That is one of the reasons why it was important to have Professor Siobhan O'Neill put into office as the mental health champion. We have been looking at non-COVID health. The Member will know that Minister of Health has brought forward his cancer plan. There are many other conditions for which he needs to bring forward plans. I am sure that we are all getting correspondence in relation to that.
Importantly, we are looking at things from a family point of view. I know that there has been a lot of discussion about the family unit. Of course, in Northern Ireland, family is very important. The voice of the family needs to be there as well. There is no doubt that that will become a louder voice as we move towards some of the very significant times when family would be together, such as Christmas. Therefore, we have a big job of work to do in relation to how we bring together all those different strands, because it is highly important that, whilst, of course, we have to deal with the COVID piece, there are so many other pieces that we must deal with as well.

Caoimhe Archibald: I thank the First Minister for her statement. This week, we have seen a number of cases amongst the student population. Students' representatives have been saying that there is a lack of clarity about messaging and guidance that is specific to them. Does the First Minister think that enough is being done to support students, including those who are self-isolating? Do the regulations permit students to travel home at weekends and at the end of term?

Arlene Foster: I will start with the latter end of that question. Yes: at present, students can go home at the weekends and at the end of term. That is something that we will look at continually. It goes back to the issue of families being able to come together. We know that, uniquely, young people go home at the weekends for various reasons, perhaps for a job or just to see their family. We ask them to exercise caution. Of course, if they have any symptoms, they should self-isolate and seek a test.
We are working with the universities. Officials are having a meeting with the universities today. That is important. I have to say that some of the scenes from other universities on the mainland have been quite distressing. This morning, I was reading about someone who is vegan being offered Mars bars in support, so a lot of support needs to be put into that. Obviously, we are in touch with Queen's University about those who have been diagnosed as COVID-positive and those who are self-isolating in order to ensure that the appropriate support is in place. Therefore, it is an ongoing issue. It is a developing issue, unfortunately. We will continue to work with the universities on it.

Sinead McLaughlin: I thank the First Minister for her statement. The economy is not in recovery. It is hanging on. It is on life support at present. While the announcement is necessary, it is not welcome for obvious reasons. What further restrictions are being considered by the Executive if that intervention does not work?

Arlene Foster: I thank the Member for her question. Indeed, we are considering a menu of interventions and it is important that we do. The positive thing to say to the Member is that, as we understand it from our Chief Scientific Adviser, the household restrictions that we put in place in Ballymena had the impact of reversing the trend in that area. In Belfast, the household restrictions slowed the transmission of the virus.
It is important that we continue to monitor the restrictions that we put in place to see what impact that they are having before we bring forward other restrictions. We are very conscious of the fact that the Act under which this is all happening, and on which we have received quite a lot of correspondence recently, says that we need to be proportionate and that it needs to be necessary. That is something that we always keep to the forefront of our mind. We do not want to bring forward restrictions on hospitality; we are only doing so because we believe that it is necessary, but we do believe that it is proportionate.

Alan Chambers: First Minister, I welcome your clear message to the public this morning, especially to the small minority of people who seem to think that this is some sort of a hoax to rob them of their civil liberties. Earlier, my colleague Doug Beattie asked whether the Executive had invited the Justice Minister to chair the new enforcement body. You referred him to ask that question directly to the Justice Minister. Can I respectfully ask, First Minister, whether, at any point, you asked the Justice Minister to chair this body?

Arlene Foster: I thank the Member for his question. I do not want to get into the details of Executive meetings. It would be invidious and wrong to do that. I think that it is a common cause. The Justice Minister has made comments relating to the enforcement group. It is my understanding that the reason why she felt that she did not want to chair that group was because the remit was wider than the Justice portfolio.
It is incredibly important that all five Executive parties work together at this critical time. Whilst we all may have different views on different things, it is important that we listen to the data. Today, I have tried to outline the data to the House as to why we are taking these decisions. I have tried to explain the rationale behind the 11.00 pm curfew as opposed to another time. I hope that Members appreciate that this is not something that we arrive at very quickly. We take considerable time to deal with these issues and we will continue to work together. That is a critical point in an effort to do what is right for all the citizens of Northern Ireland.

Alan Chambers: Thank you.

Dolores Kelly: I thank the First Minister for the statement. As a former member of the Policing Board, you will be aware that policing and enforcement is a huge problem. You are essentially applying policing enforcement to a health crisis. Enforcement is also the responsibility of other agencies. What discussions have you had with the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (Solace), for example? To pick up on Mr Chambers' point, it is my understanding that the junior Ministers have a very clear remit to ensure that there is dialogue and early engagement with the police and others on how restrictions might well be enforced.

Arlene Foster: I thank the Member for her question. The junior Ministers do take on that role, not just engaging with the police but with Solace. They have very much been part of those conversations and with other agencies that may have a role in enforcement.
I could not be clearer: we do not want to have to enforce the rules. We would much prefer that people complied with them and worked with us. There needs to be, dare I say it, that backstop to deal with these issues, and the police have been very good in working with the Executive Office. If there is an issue, they come and talk to us and we try to sort the issue out. As Mr Beattie said earlier, none of this is perfect. We are trying deal with an emerging situation. When you look at the numbers of people who are testing positive for COVID, it is an appropriate and necessary step that we are taking.

Patsy McGlone: I thank the First Minister for her responses up until now. On the specific question of enforcement, it came to my attention, particularly over the weekend, that the police were saying that there is a grey area, certainly on whether they are to be the lead agency on enforcement, and senior officials in local government are saying precisely the same thing to me. They say that they are waiting for clarification from the Executive on that. Perhaps the First Minister could give us some insight on where we are and when the situation is likely to be clarified. There is a wider issue around the messaging and the clarity of message emanating from the COVID regulations.

Arlene Foster: I thank the Member for his question. I hope that my coming here today and setting out the rationale behind the decision to close hospitality premises at 11.00 pm explains what we are trying to do in that respect. I hope also that the fact that the whole hospitality industry will be closed by 11.00 pm gives clarity to the Police Service of Northern Ireland and makes enforcement easier for it. There are no exceptions, no late licences, and therefore the police will know that no hospitality premises should be open after 11.00 pm.
When we had the differentiation between wet bars and those selling food, it was difficult to enforce. I accept that. I know that there were some very good businesses that were faithful in keeping their doors closed, as wet bars only, but there were some that were not. They were gaming the regulations, and we were aware of that. I think that it is important that the whole sector is now open, although we have put the whole sector under a curfew of 11.00 pm. I hope that that will give some clarity.
It will not be welcomed by the industry. I recognise that. However, we are doing it to try to ensure that we stop the spread of coronavirus and break the transmission levels as well.

Rachel Woods: I thank the First Minister and the junior Minister for coming to the House today. First, will the First Minister confirm an important detail in relation to an earlier question, that last orders will have to be before 10.30 pm, given that she stated that customers must be off the premises by 11.00 pm, to facilitate drinking-up time?
Secondly, has there been any assessment by the Executive or by her ministerial colleague in Economy of what potential reduced staff hours might mean in terms of redundancies?

Arlene Foster: Hotels and bars will stop serving alcohol at 10.30 pm. So, last orders will be at 10.30 pm, just to be clear, and people will be off the premises by 11.00 pm. That is what the restrictions will say.
As for the assessment of redundancies and what have you, I think that we were very clear about the importance of allowing for a second sitting in restaurants and pubs that sell food. That was an effort to try to make sure that they are viable. Without that, it would have been challenging for some restaurants. As I said, this will not be welcome, but it will be better than closing at 10.00 pm and having some of the associated difficulties with that.

Jim Allister: I note that there are two versions of the statement. Perhaps the First Minister will explain that. Has what has been announced this morning yet been reduced to regulations? Are the regulations to deal with this now published, and do those regulations extend to conduct within the public houses, namely social distancing between different households? If they do, who is going to enforce that? Is that burden going to be on the publican or on someone else? If people are going to retire from the pub to a local house, how is enforcement to be undertaken?

Arlene Foster: I thank the Member for his question. I apologise if a draft statement was put out. The statement that I delivered is the statement, just to be clear.
In terms of enforcement, the regulations will be laid tomorrow, and they will come into force tomorrow evening at midnight. So, tomorrow is the last day, if you like, of the old regime, and the regulations will come into force on Thursday.
As for individuals in public houses, the responsibility lies with the individuals. I am not making any apologies for the fact that it will be difficult to enforce that. I accept that, but we are saying to people, "If you want to work with us and break the transmission of the virus, the best way to do that is to limit your social contact with other individuals from different households inside." That is why we are having that limit.
People can meet others outside in the open air, where it is well-ventilated and they are socially distancing. There is no science to this, Mr Allister. I know that you will want to interrogate the regulations and that is absolutely the right thing for the House to do. However, I ask the Member to bear with us in the enforcement of these regulations because we are trying to do something that we have never done, which is to stop the transmission of the virus, and we are asking people to work with us in that respect.

Gerry Carroll: Sick pay is paltry for many hospitality workers, and it is likely that many will be financially forced to make decisions that may not be best for their health and the health of the community. What extra provision does the First Minister or the Executive have to develop a COVID sick-pay scheme for low-paid hospitality workers?

Arlene Foster: I hear the Member's question, and I am sure that the Economy Minister will be looking carefully at the industry to see if interventions are needed to help. I accept what the Member says about such workers being in low-paid jobs and, sometimes, on zero-hours contracts. There is a need to be aware of all that, and I am sure that the Economy Minister, or, indeed, the Communities Minister, will bring forward any support proposals if that is deemed necessary.

Alex Maskey: That concludes questions on the statement. I thank the Minister and those Members who contributed on this important issue.

Doug Beattie: On a point of order. Last Monday, I had a question for urgent oral answer for the Justice Minister about the Holylands. My subsequent question was about the COVID enforcement group.
The Minister's answer was:
"With respect to the Member, the composition of the working group was not a matter for the Department of Justice; it was a matter for the Department of Health and the Executive Office, so I suggest that perhaps that is something that he should take up with them." — [Official Report (Hansard), 21 September 2020, p71, col 1].
I now believe that the Minister was asked to chair that working group. Therefore, the candour and openness of the Minister in answering my question were not in keeping with the seven principles of public life, as in openness.
Could I ask the Speaker to please rule on whether the Minister should be invited back to the Assembly and reflect on that answer?

Alex Maskey: Given that you gave me no notice of that point of order, I will consider and reflect on that and come back to you.
I ask Members to take their ease while we prepare for the next item of business.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Beggs] in the Chair)

Executive Committee Business

The Northern Ireland Screen Commission (Funding) Order (Northern Ireland) 2020

Diane Dodds: I beg to move:
That the Northern Ireland Screen Commission (Funding) Order (Northern Ireland) 2020 be affirmed.

Roy Beggs: The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on this debate. I call the Minister to open the debate on the motion.

Diane Dodds: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity. The Northern Ireland Screen Commission (Funding) Order (Northern Ireland) 2020 will provide my Department with the vires to provide Northern Ireland Screen with grant-in-aid payments to allow it to continue to promote commercial activity and employment.
Northern Ireland Screen is the lead agency for the development of the screen industries in Northern Ireland. It has also had considerable success in attracting major screen projects to Northern Ireland, for example, the world-acclaimed HBO 'Game of Thrones' series, which is estimated to have brought in excess of £250 million into the local economy, employed over 1,000 local people in each of the eight series and has elevated the profile of the Northern Ireland screen industry internationally.
Production in Northern Ireland has now resumed for large-scale projects, and a new film, 'The Northman' is currently being filmed at Torr Head on the Antrim coast. High-profile projects like that will continue to support the growth of our international stature as a production location, along with the growth of our indigenous sector, as Northern Ireland Screen support ensures that local personnel are involved in international productions.
In economic terms, during the period of Northern Ireland Screen's previous strategy, it is estimated that for every £1 spent on developing the screen sector in Northern Ireland, there was £2·70 returned to the Northern Ireland economy.
The legislation brought forward to the Assembly today is required following the transfer of Northern Ireland Screen to my Department from the then Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure in May 2016 as part of the restructuring of Departments. Prior to that transfer, Northern Ireland Screen received the majority of its programme funding from Invest NI via a letter of offer. When Northern Ireland Screen became an arm's-length body of my Department, it was agreed that funding would continue to operate as previously until the existing Invest NI four-year letter of offer expired in March 2018.
Since 1 April 2018, the Department has funded Northern Ireland Screen directly rather than through Invest NI. The Department has received approval from the Department of Finance to rely upon the authority of the Budget Act on the clear understanding that appropriate legislation would be taken forward to remedy the situation once the Executive returned. There is therefore now a requirement to regularise the legislative basis on which my Department funds Northern Ireland Screen. The statutory rule being brought forward will not impact on the policy or strategic direction of Northern Ireland Screen or the amount of funding that it receives; rather it is simply a regularisation of the legislative basis on which the Department funds Northern Ireland Screen. Therefore, I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Caoimhe Archibald: I rise to speak briefly as Chair of the Economy Committee to support the motion on behalf of the Committee. As the Minister has indicated, the NI Screen Commission (Funding) Order (NI) 2020 will provide the Department with powers to fund NI Screen Commission, that is, NI Screen, and will regularise how the Department for the Economy makes grant-in-aid payments to NI Screen to allow it to increase commercial activity or employment in relation to the screen industries here.
The Committee considered the SL1 for the NI Screen Commission (Funding) Order (NI) 2020 in April, and members were content with the policy direction. The Committee agreed the statutory rule at its meeting on 9 September 2020 subject to the report of the Examiner of Statutory Rules. The rule came into operation in May 2020. The Examiner of Statutory Rules has no issue with the rule, and I support the motion to affirm on the Committee's behalf.
I will now speak very briefly as Sinn Féin's economy spokesperson. We recognise the role and success and commend the success of the screen industries and our creative industries. Like others, they have experienced difficulties due to COVID-19. The Minister has outlined the important contribution of both the screen industries and the wider creative sectors to our local economy and the skills base in respect of that locally. We want to see that continue to grow and, therefore, support the order to continue the grant-in-aid payment to develop commercial activity and job creation in the sector.

Gary Middleton: I thank the Minister for her statement. I welcome the motion, which provides the Department with the powers to fund Northern Ireland Screen. As the Chair stated, at the Economy Committee, we agreed the statutory rule earlier this month. The DUP supports today's motion. While it may be purely an administrative change, it is important, as it gives the Economy Department a sound statutory footing to fund NI Screen.
Northern Ireland Screen is an important agency working to maximise the economic, cultural and educational value of the screen industries to the benefit of Northern Ireland. Its activities make a considerable contribution to growing a sustainable economy, creating opportunities to tackle disadvantage and building a strong and shared future. The Minister highlighted some of the major screen projects secured by NI Screen, including the 'Game of Thrones' series, which has brought millions of pounds to the local economy and employed hundreds of people across all the series. Importantly, it has boosted our tourism industry on a worldwide stage. We must continue to explore the sector and try to secure future projects.

Sinead McLaughlin: I thank the Minister for bringing the motion to the House. I support the motion.
As colleagues across the Chamber have noted, the screen industries make up a vital component of our economy. It was estimated to be worth over £270 million in 2018. I welcome the motion, as it will enable Northern Ireland Screen to continue to develop our film industry and to nurture local expertise. Its important work has already helped to establish the region as a screen industry hub globally, attracting big names, as was outlined, such as 'Games of Thrones'. That has generated valuable opportunities for local creatives in front of and behind the camera. No more exporting our creative talent for them never to return; we now import them. The legacy of the shows lives on in the tourism services and the hospitality industries. In my city of Derry, we have experienced a boost since the success of 'Derry Girls'.
The funding order will allow Northern Ireland Screen to build on its previous successes, creating new employment opportunities and supporting creatives in overcoming the COVID challenges. It is imperative that we support this vibrant showcase industry in Northern Ireland in order to survive the current crisis and to thrive thereafter. Anything else would put livelihoods, creative activity and innovation at risk.

Pat Catney: We have all seen the good work that Northern Ireland Screen has done over the past few years in promoting Northern Ireland. It brings investment and jobs to the region; in fact, it seems that I cannot watch a programme these days without recognising a building, street or a local hang-out. However, those are not the only things that Northern Ireland Screen does.
Northern Ireland Screen works to create opportunities for the widest possible range of people across the screen industries. It has an efficient education programme that works to make sure that we have future generations of skilled workers for the industry. It has an extensive trainee programme to give new opportunities and skills to young people who want to get involved in the industry. Importantly, it works in areas of deprivation to allow people from all backgrounds to become involved. Beyond that, Northern Ireland Screen fulfils an important cultural role in its work promoting the Irish language and Ulster-Scots arts sectors. The funds that it provides to those sectors allow them to grow and to be enjoyed for years to come. It is also important to realise that the creative industries supported go far beyond film and TV. There is support for creative activities and technical skills that are transferable to all arts and beyond.
I will go back to the matter at hand. It is great to see our area represented on the screen, and we all have fun trying to figure out where all the productions are located. However, we have to realise that each time we see Northern Ireland on the screen is a direct testimony to the foreign direct investment that Northern Ireland Screen has brought in. In this time of pandemic, when we are all concerned about investment in the region, Northern Ireland Screen continues to bring money, jobs and skills to Northern Ireland, and, for that, it is completely deserving of our support.

Matthew O'Toole: It seems that my party is very fond of talking about this. We seem to be the only party that is interested in talking about the motion, but that is fine. It is important.
I welcome the fact that the funding order is before the Assembly. I will not go through all the productions. Others have done it, and we all know how wonderful they are. The specific economic value of 'The Fall', 'Derry Girls' or whatever is not in doubt. Perhaps more important than or as important as the direct economic value has been the self-confidence that it has given to Northern Ireland in the post-Troubles era. For perhaps too long, too much of our economic policymaking has been about securing lower-value-added jobs announcements, and, while no one should be in any doubt or be sniffy about the importance of getting people into work, as, I am sure, the Minister is not, especially given the economic headwater that we are getting into, our creative industries stand out as a genuinely value-adding sector. However, we need to plan for the future, so that is what I want to talk about in brief today, and I will ask the Minister to reflect on it as she deals with the industry, going forward.
We have talked about 'Game of Thrones' tourism, which is wonderful, but it is in abeyance at the minute and we do not know when or if it will return to previous levels. There is a risk that we have almost become drunk on the success of 'Game of Thrones'. Wonderful though it is to see 'Game of Thrones' tourists at Tollymore, Strangford lough or the Dark Hedges in north Antrim, it is in abeyance at the minute, and 'Game of Thrones' tourism is not evidence of a thriving plan for our screen industry, going forward. We need to plan for the future.
The point that I make is that our screens industry — it is not just film and TV, as Pat Catney said; it includes a growing video-game production sector in Northern Ireland — is looking at the opportunities for the future, and the Department is supporting the industry in that. One of those areas is around virtual production and how film, TV and screens production in general adapts to the transformation that has already happened and will continue to happen in digital production. For example, lots of people in the sector are already reflecting on the fact that there is much more virtual production when it comes to big Hollywood films or big productions generally. That might mean that there is less need for some of the facilities that exist in Belfast at the minute. That does not mean that they will go into decline, but it means that they need to adjust their digital capabilities, including the skill set that we have in Northern Ireland and in Belfast in particular. What work is the Minister doing with, for example, the screen and media innovation labs and the Future Screens programme, which is funded by Northern Ireland Screen and, therefore, indirectly by her Department? That work is taking place with the universities here, and it is really important that we have an ongoing plan to ensure that we are at the cutting edge of things going forward and not, as it were, resting on our laurels.
On that note, it is worth raising an issue on which I have corresponded with her and that, I know, she cares about: I ask her to take up the cudgels again on BBC investment in Belfast. The BBC was due to invest nearly £80 million in inner South Belfast, in my constituency. Bluntly, it probably will not do that now. I have had correspondence from the outgoing director general and from the new director general, both of which suggest it will not happen. It is really important that the Minister and everyone here keeps up the pressure to ensure that we get the maximum investment in that, particularly to sustain digital skills. That was due to be a hub for digital skills in Belfast. We need that to continue.
Lastly, it is really important that we reflect on the work of Northern Ireland Screen. Northern Ireland Screen is a critical funder of film-making, TV production and games production in Northern Ireland. Many of the people whom it funds, encourages or gives seed, training and everything that is needed to are freelance creatives who have had an absolutely torrid few months. They have had — belatedly, it has to be said — an announcement from the Executive that funding that was made available via Barnett in July will finally be allocated. Can the Minister use her offices to put pressure on to ensure that that money is properly disbursed quickly and that people who work in our screen industries in Northern Ireland are able to access it in a way that works for them? For example, lots of them are self-employed. Some of them move from self-employed status to employed status as they go from one production to another. Sometimes, they are in Northern Ireland and are paying UK taxes; at other times, they travel abroad for a while. All of that means that there are complicated issues around how they fund themselves, so I ask her to engage with the Department for Communities on how that funding is got out. There are issues to address for the future, but, in general, I welcome the funding order, and I am glad that it is being made today.

Jim Allister: I too welcome the making of the order. I do that as the MLA who drew attention in the Budget debate to the fact that we had this anomalous situation where Northern Ireland Screen was not being properly funded on a statutory basis but in an obscure way through the black box system that operates under the Budget Act. Of course, it was being funded well in excess of the supposed limit on that mode of funding. Therefore, it is good that it is now being regularised and brought onto a proper statutory footing. I am still puzzled as to how it ever was in the position that it was and how, for so many years, under both Departments, it continued without the proper statutory basis yet continued to be funded. It is good that, at last, that has been regularised. It makes an important contribution to our economy. Indeed, there are many unseen support industries across Northern Ireland that feed into the product that is Northern Ireland Screen, and I am glad now that the funding is being put on a lawful and proper basis.

Gerry Carroll: I think that excitement was the feeling that most of my constituents had yesterday when Mr Adrian Dunbar and his colleagues were filming in west Belfast, and that sort of captured the excitement that the film and creative industries can give the people at any time but especially in the middle of a health pandemic. Obviously, the Minister will be aware of the group of hundreds of independent actors and artists who gathered, I think, last Friday through the We Make Events NI group in a socially distanced way. It is important that we hear the voices of those who work in the sector.
As Members have said, NI Screen is an important project, and it supports important programmes such as the Irish Language Broadcast Fund (ILBF). Such programmes are important and essential in developing and nurturing talent, but, by their design, they are limited in being able to take in only a certain number of people and places. I think that there is a general concern that there may be an approach that focuses solely or primarily on developing big showcase programmes. Those are obviously welcome and enjoyable for people, but, as has been referred to, freelance actors and others working in the creative industries generally may be forgotten about or cast aside. What assurances can the Minister give us with the order that it will not be the case that just the big organisations and the big projects will be supported? Finally, it is essential that we reclaim and keep to a basic principle that art should be for people's benefit and enjoyment and not be about maximising profit, be that locally or internationally.

Diane Dodds: I thank colleagues across the House for their support in ensuring that Northern Ireland Screen is appropriately funded and that the anomaly that we have had in its funding will be no longer. That is an important basis for going forward, and I thank you for your support on that.
For a few seconds, I will answer some of the questions and issues that have been raised by the debate. I think that we are all supportive of the funding model and mechanism that we need to fund Northern Ireland Screen.
We are all also very supportive of the work that Northern Ireland Screen does, as our colleague Matthew O'Toole said, in giving confidence to Northern Ireland and bringing back that sense of being able to step out on the international stage and do things that gain international acclaim, win awards and are really important for Northern Ireland. That is important.
The Chair referenced some of the issues around Northern Ireland Screen, including skills issues. Skills are really important for the future of the industry in Northern Ireland. I was really encouraged by my visit to my local further education college. That new build, which is opening soon in Banbridge, means huge investment in the local economy. There, the Southern Regional College will invest in digital and media skills, and 300 young students from across that region of Northern Ireland will be upskilling in all these areas. That is important and exciting for Northern Ireland: not only are we looking at how we support core and traditional values and industries but we are reaching out to new industries and training young people to be part of them. Again, I stress the importance of video game and virtual production. Those are hugely important to Northern Ireland, and I look forward, as the Minister responsible for skills, to doing more work in that area.
All of us in the House have, I think, collectively, expressed our pride in what Northern Ireland Screen does and what it brings to Northern Ireland, but it is also important to remember that it is a huge contributor to the economy. That can continue, and it can increase its contribution. It is one of the areas that we need to focus on for the new economy and for Northern Ireland's next century. I thank colleagues across the House for their support.
Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Northern Ireland Screen Commission (Funding) Order (Northern Ireland) 2020 be affirmed.

Roy Beggs: I ask Members to take their ease for a few moments.

Fisheries Bill: Legislative Consent Motion

Edwin Poots: I beg to move
That this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of the Fisheries Bill, as introduced in the House of Lords on 29 January 2020, and consents to the Fisheries Bill being taken forward by the Westminster Parliament.

Roy Beggs: The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on this debate. I invite the Minister to open the debate on the motion.

Edwin Poots: This UK Government Bill contains UK-wide clauses, the majority of which relate to devolved matters. It also contains a small number of provisions that are specific to Northern Ireland. It is for this reason that I am seeking the Assembly's legislative consent to the Bill extending to Northern Ireland. However, before I get into the detail of these provisions, I would like to emphasise the importance of the Bill.
The Bill will ensure that a legal framework is in place so that the UK is able to operate as an independent coastal state under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 after the UK has left the common fisheries policy at the end of the year. In addition and no less importantly, it will allow us to create common approaches to fisheries management within the rest of the UK. This can only be good for the future of sustainable fishing, an objective that I am sure that we can we can all support and which I will return to later. The Bill as amended at Committee Stage in the House of Commons contains provisions of interest to Northern Ireland on fisheries objectives, fisheries statements and fisheries management plans; access to UK waters; fishing boat licensing; fishing opportunities; grants and charges; financial assistance; and the powers to amend UK law related to fisheries and aquatic animal health.
I turn now to the detail of the Bill and specifically to those clauses that are UK-wide and touch on devolved matters. Clause 1 defines UK fisheries objectives and is one of the Bill's key elements. There are eight objectives.
A sustainability objective will ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities are environmentally sustainable in the long term and managed in a way that is consistent with the objectives of achieving economic, social and employment benefits.
A precautionary objective will apply a precautionary approach to fisheries management and ensure that marine stocks are maintained above levels that are capable of producing maximum sustainable yield.
An ecosystem objective will implement an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management. This will ensure that negative impacts of fishing activities on the ecosystem are minimised and also that incidental catches are minimised and, where possible, eliminated.
A scientific evidence objective will contribute to the collection of scientific data. It will also require the UK's fisheries administrations to work together, share data and make use of that data to inform our fisheries management policies.
A by-catch objective will seek to avoid or reduce catches of unwanted by-catch. It will also include undersized fish and the need to record and account for all catches so that they are not discarded at sea, but without incentivising the catching of undersized fish.
An equal access objective will ensure that the access of UK fishing boats to any area within British fishery limits is not affected by the fishing boat's home port or any other connection of the fishing boat or any of its owners to any place in the UK.
A national benefit objective will ensure that the activities of UK fishing boats bring social or economic benefits to the UK or part of the UK.
A climate change objective will seek to minimise the adverse effect of fishing and aquaculture activities on climate change and ensure that those activities adapt to climate change.
Before I leave these objectives, I would like to mention an amendment that was passed in the House of Lords but subsequently overturned by the UK Government in the House of Commons at Committee Stage. I mention it specifically because I know that it has been of interest to some Members and indeed others outside the House. This was the insertion of a new subsection into clause 1 so that the sustainability objective would become the primary fisheries objective. It would have required future policies to give priority to environmental sustainability over economic and social sustainability. In fact, it would have been prioritised over the other seven fisheries objectives. The UK Government's response was that there should be no hierarchy of objectives and that the place for applying these objectives to the policies in each jurisdiction should be the joint fisheries statement. That is a position that I support.
That takes me neatly on to clauses 2 and 3, which relate to the joint fisheries statement. Clause 2 places a duty on the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the devolved Administrations to set out their policies for achieving the fisheries objectives in clause 1 and how they intend to make use of fisheries management plans in order to achieve those objectives. It recognises that a joined-up approach is needed on the coordination of fisheries policies once the UK has left the common fisheries policy. The Bill as amended at Committee Stage in the House of Commons requires that the statement is published not later than two years from the date of Royal Assent. Clause 3 sets out the procedures that should follow in the preparation and publication of the statement and of any replacement of or amendment to it.
Clauses 6 to 11 relate to fisheries management plans. Clause 6 places a duty on the relevant fisheries authorities to prepare and publish the proposed fisheries management plans in the joint fisheries statement and sets out what should be specified in each plan, including whether there is sufficient scientific evidence to make an assessment of a stock's maximum sustainable yield.
Clause 7 sets out the requirements for preparing and publishing replacement plans or amendments to existing plans, while clause 8 sets out the procedure that should be followed. Clause 9 permits a fisheries authority to prepare and publish a fisheries management plan before a joint fisheries statement has been agreed and published. Clause 10 permits each fisheries authority to pursue the policies outlined in the joint fisheries statement or fisheries management plans that are applicable to them. That is to provide for some flexibility in decision-making. Clause 11 places a requirement on the fisheries authorities to report on the effectiveness of the policies in the joint fisheries statement and the fisheries management plans and to lay those in the respective legislatures.
I move to clauses 12 and 13, which cover access to British fisheries by foreign fishing boats and the regulation of foreign fishing boats. Clause 12 sets out when foreign fishing boats may enter British fishery limits, when they must leave and the offence for failing to comply. Clause 13 introduces schedule 2, which contains amendments to subordinate legislation and ensures that foreign fishing vessels are subject to the same regulations as British fishing boats when fishing in UK waters.
Clauses 14 to 18 deal with the licensing of fishing boats. Clause 14 sets out the circumstances in which a licence is required for British fishing boats, subject to certain exemptions. That maintains the status quo and ensures that a licence will be effective throughout UK waters. The clause also provides the DEFRA Secretary of State with the power to amend the section by regulations but only with the consent of the devolved Administrations. That respects the devolution settlements.
Clause 15 provides a power for devolved Administrations and the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) to grant licences to British fishing boats. Clause 16 prohibits fishing by foreign fishing boats unless they have a licence issued by a fisheries administration. The clause reflects the fact that, once the UK has left the common fisheries policy, access for foreign vessels to fish in UK waters is subject to negotiations. Members will be aware that that issue is key to ongoing negotiations between the UK Government and the European Union.
Clause 17 provides a power for the devolved Administrations and the Marine Management Organisation to grant licences to foreign fishing boats but with respect only to the area of UK waters for which they have competence. For us, that means the Northern Ireland zone.
Clause 18 defines "sea fishing licence" and introduces schedule 3, which makes further provision about sea fishing licences.
Clauses 19 to 22 set out the penalties for offences in relation to access and licensing, the jurisdiction of a court to try offences, and consequential amendments. Included in that are the circumstances in which the officer of a body corporate as well as the body corporate may be found guilty of committing a relevant offence.
That takes me to clauses 25 and 26, which relate to fishing opportunities. Clause 25 sets out the criteria for the distribution of fishing opportunities, according to transparent and objective criteria, including those of an environmental, social and economic nature. Clause 26 places a duty on fisheries authorities to ensure that fishing opportunities are not exceeded.
Clauses 33 to 35 relate to grants and charges. Clause 33 introduces schedule 6, which confers power on the Northern Ireland Department to give financial assistance or to arrange for financial assistance to be given to any person for a range of specified purposes. It must be given in accordance with a scheme established by regulations made by the Northern Ireland Department.
Clause 34 introduces schedule 7, which confers powers on the Northern Ireland Department, corresponding to those conferred on the Secretary of State by the clause. Those relate to the imposition of charges for carrying out specific marine functions. Members will wish to note that the regulation-making powers in schedules 6 and 7 would be subject to the Assembly's affirmation resolution and negative resolution procedures respectively.
Clause 35 amends the Fisheries Act 1981 in order to extend a requirement that the Sea Fish Industry Authority, which is perhaps better known as Seafish, must recover the full cost of any service that it provides to persons in other countries. That is a technical amendment that will enable Seafish to recover all its costs from persons in the EU regardless of what it charges those in the UK.
Clauses 36 to 41 relate to the power to make further provisions about fisheries, aquaculture, aquatic animal diseases and scope. Clause 42 introduces schedule 8, which provides the Northern Ireland Department with the power to make provisions about fisheries and aquaculture etc and aquatic animal diseases corresponding to those that are conferred on the Secretary of State by clauses 36 and 38. Those provisions relate to technical matters that are currently regulated by the EU under the common fisheries policy and will allow us to make changes to amend UK fisheries law.
Clause 44 introduces schedule 9, which contains amendments to the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 and in connection with prohibiting the killing, injuring or taking of seals. The current position in the UK is that permission can be granted, albeit under licence, to shoot seals in order to protect fisheries' interests, particularly salmon farms. However, countries that wish to export fish and fish products to the United States of America from 1 January 2020 must have obtained what is known as a comparability finding. That means that their fisheries' regimes and regulatory frameworks must comply with the United States's Marine Mammal Protection Act, which gives a very high level of protection to marine mammals and includes a prohibition on international killing. This amendment will enable us to meet those requirements.
Clause 46 introduces schedule 11, which makes minor and consequential amendments to retained direct EU legislation. Clauses 47 to 51 make final provisions. Those provide for amendments to certain provisions of subordinate legislation to ensure that any such provisions can be further amended by subordinate legislation in the future provided that regulations that are made under the Bill make:
"consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional, or saving"
provisions etc. They define commonly used terms in the Bill, set out the territorial extent of the Bill, explain when the Bill's provisions will come into effect and provide the short title, which, when the Bill becomes an Act, will be the Fisheries Act 2020.
Finally, I will turn to the schedules that apply to Northern Ireland. Schedule 1 sets out the procedures that will apply to the preparation, adoption and publication of the joint fisheries statement. Schedule 2 amends secondary legislation that will ensure that foreign fishing vessels that are licensed to fish in UK waters will be subject to the same requirements and restrictions as UK fishing vessels that are operating in those waters. Schedule 3 makes further provision in relation to sea fishing licences, and schedule 4 makes minor and consequential amendments to access to UK waters and licensing. Schedules 6 to 9 and schedule 11, which has been covered, also apply to Northern Ireland.
Before I finish, I will bring Members' attention to three amendments that will be tabled by the UK Government at Report Stage in the House of Commons. I am mentioning them here simply in the interests of transparency and completeness. The Bill as introduced amends the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 in order to provide powers for Scottish and Welsh Ministers to regulate fishing for marine conservation purposes in their respective offshore regions. First, the UK Government are being asked to table an amendment at Report Stage in the House of Commons that will provide DAERA with similar powers to regulate fishing in the Northern Ireland offshore region.
Secondly, schedule 2, to which I referred, includes amendments to subordinate legislation that was made to address local issues that, because of EU law, could be applied only to UK vessels. The UK Government have been asked to table an amendment to that schedule at Report Stage in the House of Commons in order to include six Northern Ireland statutory rules so that the restrictions and requirements that are provided by them will apply equally to all fishing vessels that are licensed to fish in the Northern Ireland zone.
Thirdly, a new provision should be tabled at Report Stage in the House of Commons to provide Scottish and Welsh Ministers and DAERA with a power to enter into arrangements with, for example, other devolved Administrations and their marine management organisations. That amendment would provide the legislative basis for putting in place those joint working arrangements.

Declan McAleer: As we have heard from the Minister, this is a Westminster Bill that aims to provide for a new legal framework to replace the common fisheries policy (CFP). It will make provision for fisheries, aquaculture, marine conservation and the functions of the Marine Management Organisation, and in doing so will revoke the EU legislation that currently exists.
There are a number of clauses within the Bill that extend to this jurisdiction for which legislative consent is being sought and they have been outlined in the LCM. The Committee has reported on those and a copy of our report was provided by email to all MLAs on 7 July. A supplementary LCM has since been tabled to take account of further amendments that affect here. The Committee took evidence on that last week and I will refer to those amendments later.
I want to make it clear today that, as a Committee, we had a very short timeframe in which to consider the Bill. Not only was the Committee considering the Fisheries Bill, but it also had the Environment Bill and the Agriculture Bill, all within weeks of one another. That caused much concern amongst Committee members. We were finishing our consideration of the evidence when the COVID-19 crisis hit in March and that also had an impact on our scrutiny. This type of rushed scrutiny is not how we like to do business.
The Committee wishes it to be clearly understood that due to the lack of information on the Fisheries Bill and the subsequent amendments, and the limited time that it has had to consider them, it has been unable to fully explore and understand the potential impacts and implications for this jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Committee’s consideration of the amendments has been further compounded by the fact that it is being asked to do so in the context of the legal uncertainties around the Internal Market Bill and the withdrawal agreement.
Our fishing produce is world-renowned and much value is placed on our exported produce. Nevertheless, many will know that the fishing industry is a dangerous occupation and it is a living that is hard-earned. Therefore, we must not merely nod through legislation which could create further complexities for our fishing industry, including financial, technical and territorial problems. Many coastal families and communities have seen fishing handed down from generation to generation and have no desire to see further hardship or regulation for the sake of it. For that reason, and many others that I will outline shortly, the Committee decided not to take a position on the legislative consent motion.
I will now look briefly at how the Committee undertook its scrutiny of the Bill in the short time that it had to do so. We took oral and written evidence on one day only — 5 March 2020 — from a number of stakeholders. Ideally, we would have preferred to have heard from many more, but as I have already said, time was against us.
The Committee commissioned a research paper from the Assembly’s Research and Information Service (RaISe) on the Fisheries Bill and received a written submission from Brexit and Environment, which is a network of impartial academic experts who analyse the implications of Brexit for government.
From the evidence gathered by the Committee and analysis of the Bill in the time that we had, the Committee identified a number of issues that I share with you today.
The first issue that I want to draw Members attention to is the hierarchy of fishing objectives that the Bill revolves around, which will lead to a joint fisheries statement underpinned by fish management plans. There are eight objectives and they are sustainability, precautionary, eco-system, scientific evidence, by-catch, equal access, national benefit and climate change.
Stakeholders expressed some concern around the definition of eco-system and stated that they would like to see the definition expanded to include the sustainability of the fleet and the communities that they support, in order to allow for a holistic approach. Others considered that they should be underpinned by a clear legal duty on relevant authorities to achieve them, alongside a level of consistency between the devolved Administrations to ensure that the objectives are achieved.
There were numerous issues identified in the RaISe briefing which the Committee considered in relation to the objectives, such as the role for Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) with regard to the scientific evidence objectives etc. These are outlined on page 9 of the Committee report.
Although some of the stakeholders broadly welcomed the objectives and the joint fisheries statement and the fish management plans, we as a Committee felt that there is a distinct lack of clarity and detail around those particular clauses, making it very difficult to assess what the impact will be on the fishing industry. Again, the lack of time and resources afforded to the Committee has prevented the full and rigorous scrutiny that the Bill required.
Access and licensing is another feature of the Bill, which will revoke and replace all current powers for licensing authorities to license for fishing in British waters.
Throughout the Bill there are references to &quot;foreign fishing vessels&quot;, which some members of the Committee objected to when used in connection with vessels from the South of Ireland. Clarification was sought from the Department on the use of that terminology. 
Officials advised the Committee that the term is a recognised one, which is used worldwide to define vessels that are not registered in the country that is being referred to. They further advised that the term is used 53 times in the Bill. For the purposes of the Committee report, it was agreed to replace the term &quot;foreign fishing vessel&quot; with &quot;non-UK fishing vessels or boats&quot;.
The Bill requires such non-UK vessels to have a UK-issued licence to fish in UK waters. That requirement will revoke the current arrangements, which automatically provide rights to such vessels. In addition, the Bill will revoke provisions in the Fishery Limits Act 1976 and will introduce a new requirement that non-UK vessels must be licensed by the Marine Management Organisation or by one of the fisheries administrations to fish in UK waters.
Clause 17 empowers the relevant fisheries authority to issue licences to non-UK vessels to fish inside their zone. Stakeholders raised the issue of such licensing and of potential governance gaps. Concern was expressed about the potential for a non-UK vessel to access Isle of Man waters post-Brexit. To do so would be entirely legal but the potential exists for illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and claims that fish that were caught in one area were caught elsewhere.
The Committee is concerned that uncertainty exists around moving from fishing waters of a European jurisdiction to Scotland, Wales, England or here, including the Isle of Man and the South of Ireland and further guidance on that aspect is required. Stakeholders also raised the issue of remote electronic monitoring (REM) as a fishing management tool. Further information on REM can be found in the Committee's report at page 12. The Committee raised that matter with departmental officials.
The Department advised that it has a sea fisheries inspectorate which has an enforcement and control remit. However, that role will change on 31 December 2020 and the risks and resource requirement for that was being considered. That is another area that the Committee was unable to explore in any great detail with the Department or stakeholders. Questions remain over the resource implications for the sea fisheries inspectorate to enable it to ensure compliance with licensing requirements, as well as what its role and remit will be on 1 January 2021 and how it will manage the requirements that are contained in the Fisheries Bill.
Members will be aware that fishing quotas have always been the subject of heated debate and have long been one of the main criticisms of the common fisheries policy. Clause 23 of the Bill provides that the Secretary of State will determine, in a calendar year, the fishing quota for the UK, which will take international obligations into account. The Bill states that the Secretary of State must consult with the four fisheries administrations.
The Committee was keen to explore with the Department if any assessment had been undertaken of the potential for an increase in fishing opportunities for our local fleet. Officials advised the Committee that an assessment of the benefits arising out of Brexit had been mapped. However, the main fishing opportunities for fleets here are mostly in the Irish Sea for prawns and no major change to quotas are anticipated.
Stakeholders advised the Committee that while they envisage that the current method of allocating quotas will be continued, they have concerns about the distribution of any additional quotas that will come their way following exit from the EU. They expressed concern that the fishing zone here is small and does not accurately reflect the fishing activity of our fleet. If the decision is made to divide up fishing waters by square miles of territorial waters, then the consequences would be disastrous. Other stakeholder concerns, such as those relating to the Hague Preference and the infrastructure constraints of our fishing ports, have been outlined in the Committee's report.
Previously, under the CFP, financial assistance was available under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). That allowed the fish and aquaculture industries to improve the marine and aquatic environment and to develop areas in which fish or aquacultural activities are carried out. Our fishing harbours also used that funding for capital and infrastructural works. The Committee was keen to hear about what the Department was considering as a replacement for that funding, as the UK Government had advised that each devolved Administration will lead on their own replacement funding schemes.
The Committee heard that while there had been discussions on the matter with the British Government, nothing has yet been guaranteed. However, the Department indicated that it was hopeful that any such funding would be similar to what had been available through EMFF but that it would be subject to the spending review. Stakeholders welcomed the assurance that a replacement scheme for EMFF was being considered. Nevertheless, the Committee has highlighted a number of concerns in relation to that in its report.
One of the concerns is whether the new scheme would be compatible with the state aid considerations contained in article 10 of the protocol. That is very significant, given what the Internal Market Bill states regarding state aid. Members will be glad to know that I do not intend to outline all our concerns here; instead, I will refer them to page 18 of our report.
The Committee report also draws attention to a number of factors outside the Bill that will impact on the implementation of its provision. Those include the implementation of the protocol, trade agreements, the voisinage agreement, migrant labour and marine conservation. While the detail of that is on pages 18 to 24 of the report, I want to touch on some of the key points.
It remains unclear to the Committee what the interface between the Fisheries Bill and the protocol will be. That uncertainty is further compounded by the Internal Market Bill. For example, there are many unanswered questions, including potential issues around the minimum landing size, the marketing of seafood produce, the risk of regulatory divergence and whether the annex 2 commitments will have an adverse financial cost on the fishing industry. The Committee is aware that there is uncertainty about where fish can be sold. Currently, any fish landed here are sold to the EU and are subject to free market access. How that may change after Brexit is unclear.
I will now quickly mention the voisinage agreement, which allows reciprocal access to fish in the nought- to six-nautical-mile zone between the territorial waters of North and South. It had operated successfully until 2016 when the legality of the agreement was challenged by a number of Irish anglers. That led to a court case that then banned boats from the North in Irish waters, despite the previously agreed limit. However, the Sea Fisheries (Amendment) Act was introduced by the Irish Government in April 2019, and the previous arrangement was reinstated. The Committee explored the issue with officials, who advised that they are keen to keep the voisinage agreement separate from the general fisheries agreement with the EU. The Committee has stated that it would like to see all efforts made to maintain that and the good relations that currently exist between the fishing industries across the island of Ireland.
The importance of migrant labour in the fishing industry cannot be overstated. There has been a reliance on workers from overseas labour markets for many years, and the fishing industry would not be able to cope without them.
On the issue of marine conservation, the Committee noted that we do not have fully devolved competency in that area. The Minister has written to his DEFRA counterpart to raise that issue. We had an update on that at our meeting on 24 September, and we will continue to follow it up as time goes on.
Furthermore, the Committee noted that there will be considerable implications for marine conservation arising out of the Environment Bill and a crossover with the Agriculture Bill, but it was unable to explore that further due to the time constraints placed upon it.
The Committee is concerned that many of the provisions in the Bill will be enacted by secondary legislation that provides less of a scrutiny role or opportunity for amendment than that which is provided through primary legislation.
The Committee heard from departmental officials on 24 September that there have been a number of amendments to the Bill, as well as a number of anticipated amendments that will be tabled at Report stage. The amendments that have been made include the following: extending the time frame in which the joint fisheries statement is to be published; ability to publish information on financial assistance; amendments to the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 and the Wildlife Order to allow for trade to the USA; a technical amendment to the definition of minimum conservation reference size; and the electronic communication of the granting of temporary licences.
Officials further advised that the amendments to be tabled at Report stage that will impact on this jurisdiction are the following: powers for the Department to regulate fishing for marine conservation in our offshore regions; amendments to six statutory rules to ensure that the restrictions and requirements in them will apply equally to all fishing vessels to fish in the NI zone; and powers for the devolved Administrations to enter into arrangements with other organisations, including marine management.
The Committee discussed that update with the officials in the short time that it had and agreed that, due to the lack of information and the limited time that it had to consider the amendments, it had been unable to fully explore and understand the potential impacts and implications for the jurisdiction. That difficulty has been further compounded by the fact that it is being asked to do so in the context of the legal uncertainties around the Internal Market Bill and the withdrawal agreement. That is all that I want to say as Chair of the AERA Committee.

William Irwin: I welcome the opportunity to comment today. As Members will be aware, deep-sea fishing and fishing rights for our trawler crews have been a constant concern over many years, with highly charged debates over fishing stocks, quotas, sustainability, rights and access to waters. At the heart of the discontent is EU policy that has been detrimental to our indigenous trawler crews. Ask any of our trawler crews in Northern Ireland and they will agree that EU policies, over the years, have had a truly negative and damaging effect on industry in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I welcome the legislative consent motion before the House today and the fact that fishermen across the United Kingdom will, in my view, be in a much better position fishing in UK waters post-transition than has been the case for many years.
The Bill is vital because after the UK leaves the common fisheries policy, the Bill will provide a legal framework for the United Kingdom to go forward as an independent coastal state under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982. It is essential to provide important continuity and a seamless transition from EU fishing law to administration and protection under UK-wide and specific devolved nations' regulations. The Bill is a combination of elements from the common fisheries policy and other objectives that have been tailored to best help and sustain our fishing industry in the United Kingdom. That is only to be expected, given the opportunity that is presented by leaving the European Union. It will be absolute folly if Westminster, the Assembly and other devolved regions did not make the very best of this opportunity to ensure that our fishermen are offered the greatest opportunity of establishing a thriving industry, post-transition, given that control can be regained over UK waters. It is also important to understand that control does not mean preventing access to our waters, but rather access to waters can be much more effectively controlled and monitored. This is a key element of sustainability and growth.
Sustainability has been one of the biggest debating points and, of course, it is the most vital part of the new arrangements. I believe that it will be adequately addressed as all stakeholders realise that sustainability of fishing stock is vital for their long-term survival as an industry. Our seas are a hugely important resource, both for food and our priceless marine environment. Our seas must be treated with the respect required to preserve the balance in marine environment and to ensure that a high-quality food resource is sustained for many more years to come. The Bill provides the opportunity to ensure that those important elements are protected by a protocol that is better suited to our coastal resources and not a quagmire of legislation that is untimely.
The Hague preference has an impact on Northern Ireland, and it is important that these types of straitjackets can be cast off as part of the new arrangements and be replaced with much more reasonable and tailored regulations. I have listened, in Committee, to much anxiety from some parties around the table on this issue. However, they must see the opportunity that exists with this important opportunity to right many EU legislative wrongs. There will be further opportunities ahead through the joint fisheries statement process, and I know that the industry, the Minister and the Committee will have more input in the finer detail. That will be an important process. I support the motion.

Patsy McGlone: I thank the Minister for presenting the legislative consent motion today. From the SDLP's point of view, we welcome the opportunity to debate the legislative consent motion on the Fisheries Bill. As the Chairman said, I raised the issue at the Committee on Thursday around the lack of information on the legislative consent motion and the limited time that the Committee had to consider it. It has been unable to fully explore and understand the potential impacts and implications for this jurisdiction. This difficulty has been further compounded by the fact that I and other legislatures are being asked to do so in the context of the legal uncertainties around the UK Internal Market Bill and the withdrawal agreement.
The legislative consent motion is required to provide for a new legal framework to replace the common fisheries policy because of Brexit. There is concern that the legislative consent, although delayed, may still be sought for prematurely. The COVID-19 pandemic and Westminster parliamentary procedures have severely restricted the Assembly's ability to properly scrutinise this and, indeed, other elements of legislation needed for the end of the transition period. Questions remain about provisions for aquaculture and marine conservation, the impact of climate change and the details of the proposals for legally binding fisheries management plans. There may also be significant changes in circumstances due to the ongoing negotiations between the UK and the EU for a future agreement on fisheries. Fisheries access remains a key focus of attention of any future UK/EU trade agreement and both sides appear to be still some distance apart from those separate objectives.
Fisheries is a sector that has been impacted by the British Government's unilaterally declared intention to break with the terms of the Ireland protocol in the withdrawal agreement. Some Members may imagine that breaking that protocol will make life easier for the fisheries sector, but I suspect that they may be mistaken.
The UK Government's negotiating tactics on this issue have merely increased the large degree of uncertainty that was already there for the fisheries sector, and indeed, a multiplicity of other sectors. The good relations that currently exist between and with the fishing industries across the entire island of Ireland are also not addressed by the Bill. Such good relations depend heavily on trust and that trust has been severely tested by the British Government's negotiating tactics.

Mervyn Storey: Will the Member give way?

Patsy McGlone: Yes, sure.

Mervyn Storey: I have listened to the Committee Chair and the Member talking about the great relationships that have existed between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. However, it was only in 2019 that they were forced to put into law something that had been in place since the 1960s, providing access for boats from Northern Ireland to fish off the limits of the Irish Republic. I have to say that it took them a long time to catch on, excuse the pun. Clearly, that proves that they wanted the benefit of our waters, and we were unable to get the benefit of theirs.

Patsy McGlone: I thank the Member for his intimate knowledge of the legislature of the Irish Republic.

Mervyn Storey: And?

Patsy McGlone: In addition, there are areas of the Bill where clarification is still needed. The Bill grants the UK Secretary of State at DEFRA the power to set fisheries objectives and fishing opportunities for the local fleet. There is little detail yet of what those objectives will mean or how they will be delivered. We will, in effect, be told where the fleet can fish and how much it can catch, as calculated by a yet-to-be-determined method.
In the latest amendments to the Bill — I heard the Minister said that there are further later amendments to it — the Secretary of State will be given more time to come to a decision on those matters before publishing the joint fisheries statement. It might have been better to seek an extension to that transition period, which would have allowed more time for detailed scrutiny of the Bill. We may have been touching upon that in Committee, too.
The sector is also heavily reliant on capital grants to maintain and improve its infrastructure. In the absence of the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, the Minister's Department will be responsible for future financial assistance for the fisheries sector. To date, the Department has been unable to secure — this was touched upon earlier, and the Chair referred to it too — any commitment from the UK Government to provide funding for those schemes.
The key focus of this Bill should have been the future sustainability of the fisheries sector. To that end, it would have been better if sustainability was the prime objective of the Bill and all fisheries management decisions assessed on that basis. There is lack of clarity, for example, on how fish stocks, particularly shared stocks, will be monitored and managed through the proposed fisheries management plans. It is essential that fish stocks are not finished above independently-recommended scientific levels. We have a poor record on environmental protection and weak governance in certain areas. It is far from clear, at this point, what the impact of the Bill, and other Brexit-related crossover Bills, will have on the conservation of the marine ecosystem.
In summary, there remains a great deal of uncertainty around the provisions of the Bill and how they are to be implemented.

Rosemary Barton: The fishing industry was one part of our economy that always appeared to have a strained relationship with the European Union. The common fisheries policy was, of course, the structure that regulated and controlled our fishing industry. Indeed, it has been claimed that this same policy ended many a family fishing business in Northern Ireland and livelihood in the industry.
Many in the House will recall the sector eagerly awaiting the announcement from the EU Fisheries Council each December to see what further changes in the fishing quota would be implemented in the following year.
One of the criticisms of the common fisheries policy by the fishing industry is that other EU fishing boats land more fish from UK waters than UK boats. A House of Lords Library briefing on the Fisheries Bill noted:
"On average, between 2012 and 2016, other EU member states’ vessels annually landed in the region of 749,000 tonnes of fish ... caught in UK waters.6 UK vessels landed approximately 96,000 tonnes ... caught in other member states’ waters per year in the same period."
As 31 December approaches, there is an expectation that, when the UK exits the EU, the UK, including Northern Ireland, will be able to regulate fishing in its offshore regions again. The EU has stated that its position is to maintain as far as is possible the existing traditional arrangements for EU boats to access the fish in UK waters. However, the UK position is that it will control its own waters and that fishing opportunities will primarily be for British boats. There is considerable speculation that there could be trade-offs between EU access to UK fishing waters and access by UK financial services to EU markets.
There are a number of government amendments to the Bill at this stage that are general practical amendments. Other amendments were agreed in the Lords but were removed by the House of Commons. Those initial amendments were supported by the Northern Ireland Marine Task Force but opposed by fishing industry bodies.
While the Fisheries Bill is a legislative framework, it is very necessary to put practical and administrative aspects in place following the UK's decision to leave the European Union. It also has the environmental sustainability of the fishing industry at its core, which will deliver a positive future for fishing and conservation. The sector, over the years, has been key to environmental sustainability in our waters; indeed, if it had not been for its management in conjunction with the authorities, the marine environment would be in a much worse place. With the framework outlined in the Fisheries Bill, I urge Members to support the legislative consent motion.

John Blair: On behalf of Alliance, I support the legislative consent motion, although I see it as a holding position — an interim measure —and a framework on which to build a Bill and policies that are bespoke to Northern Ireland's unique circumstances. The Fisheries Bill goes some way towards addressing the conservation governance gaps that our exit from the European Union exposes. However, issues remain that need to be addressed.
I express my disappointment that some key amendments were removed by the UK Government at the Public Bill Committee stage. Those amendments would have addressed sustainability as the prime objective of the Bill and provided for the introduction of remote electronic equipment and cameras on vessels. The removal of those amendments undermines the primary objective of the Bill, which is to make:
"a legal commitment to fish sustainably".
Regarding Brexit and Northern Ireland's unique position, the local fish processing sector, whilst small in comparison with that in other parts of the UK, makes a significant contribution to the areas in which it is based and not just in economic terms. The sea that surrounds this island supports daily lives, provides multiple resources and services, including food, renewable energy sources, tourism, leisure opportunities, physical and mental health benefits and, of course, cultural heritage. While the sea-fishing industry in Northern Ireland makes a significant contribution to our economy and culture, it is heavily reliant on accessing markets outside the region. The value of landings outside Northern Ireland waters is greater than that of local landings, which could present challenges following the transition period.
The urgency of the EU exit timetable was mentioned, as was the additional pressure of limited capacity and time for the AERA Committee to give full and proper consideration to forthcoming Bills and procedures. That is of the utmost concern when we consider the importance of the forthcoming and now delayed joint fisheries statement.
Whatever the outcome of the current process, the challenges of balancing the needs of the sector with environmental issues will remain and will be real. Human activities threaten the health of our oceans. It is estimated that over 80% of marine pollution comes from land-based activities, such as pesticides and nutrients used in agriculture ending up in coastal waters, resulting in oxygen depletion that kills marine plants and shellfish. Overfishing is, of course, also a threat to sustainability.
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO) estimates that 31·4% of fish stocks are either already fished to capacity or overfished. That is counterintuitive, considering that sustainable fisheries management and more abundant fish stocks can provide the fishing industry with greater long-term security. It is estimated that recovering fish stocks to healthy levels would result in a 37% rise, which is the equivalent of £241 million per year in the value of fish landings UK-wide. It would, of course, create many more jobs as well.
Now, more than ever, it is crucial that primary legislation enshrine sustainability in law, and, as a framework Bill, the Fisheries Bill provides an opportunity to do that. However, the Bill should have been changed to address a more delicate marine environment and depleted fish stocks. The Fisheries Bill presents us with an opportunity to create bespoke policies that are relevant to Northern Ireland and our unique position and to achieve lasting change for the better. Therefore, with a view to future solutions and improvements, which, I hope, the Minister can reflect on, I am content to support the LCM and do so in the knowledge that we need to avoid further confusion and delays at this stage.

Harry Harvey: I am pleased to see the motion, as it represents another step in the journey towards taking back control of our fishing industry. I believe that, working collectively with those in the sector — the Northern Ireland Fish Producers’ Organisation Ltd (NIFPO) and the Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation (ANIFPO) — and the other devolved regions, we now have the opportunity to herald a new dawn for UK fishing. Whilst the Bill will never satisfy everyone fully, it represents a practical framework and will provide certainty for the sector at this time. As my party colleague at Westminster, Jim Shannon, the MP for Strangford, said at Second Reading, the Bill is workable, fair and fit for purpose.
Flexibility is key for the industry and, therefore, key in respect of the Bill. , the Secretary of State must have sufficient capability to adapt policy decisions to meet the needs of the industry, working alongside the devolved Governments. Furthermore, flexibility is needed in order for us to set future total allowable catches (TACs) that are fair and practical, whilst ensuring that we have sufficient environmental protections to ensure long-term sustainable fish stocks.
There is a balance to be struck that works for the industry, and, with the cooperation of the industry, this practical and pragmatic approach represents a significant departure from the common fisheries policy. Proportionally speaking, Northern Ireland has the smallest sea area of any of the UK regions, and the local industry relies heavily on its ability to operate beyond local waters. I am therefore pleased that the Bill protects the rights of all UK fishermen to operate the length and breadth of our territorial waters. Such equal access will be of benefit to local fishing vessels operating further afield.
In relation to the role of DAERA, I note that the Secretary of State's remit extends to offshore waters of Northern Ireland only. That should be devolved, in keeping with other regions, and I encourage the Minister to make representations on that point.
Briefly and in conclusion, should the NI protocol be enacted, it must not be allowed to place any additional burdens on our fishing industry.  As with other sectors, our fish suppliers must have unfettered access to the GB market if they are to compete and if we are to have an economically viable industry. As a Strangford representative, I can speak about the decades of damage that have been inflicted by the shackles of EU bureaucracy on the fishing industry. Under the Fisheries Bill, our fishermen will be able to fish in their own waters, land their catches in our own ports, create economic growth and rekindle an industry that has been all but denied by Europe. I wish the Bill well as it moves to Report and Third Reading in the coming days.

Philip McGuigan: We have had enough debates in the Chamber to establish that there is little, if anything, positive resulting from Brexit. We have also had enough evidence to suggest that the current British Government are not exactly trustworthy, and that is particularly the case where the interests of the island of Ireland are concerned. Giving consent via the LCM with that knowledge and experience of Boris Johnson and the Tories and in the context of no overall agreement with the EU on fisheries is akin to watching the film, 'Salem's Lot' from behind the sofa and hoping that everyone in the town remains safe. Never mind their duplicity in the Internal Market Bill, they are also trying to untangle the commitment contained in the political declaration that fishing would be linked to the overall trade negotiations. That fact undermines the trade negotiations, which are vital to the future economy of this island. It would not be particularly prudent for the Assembly to give carte blanche to the Westminster Parliament until we know what kind of deal, if any, is worked out with the EU on fishing rights. I note that that position is shared by the Scottish and Welsh representatives who attempted to stall the Bill at Second Reading in Westminster until or if an agreement was reached with EU negotiators.
Over and above the clear political danger of allowing the British Government to proceed with the Bill, as a member of the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, I obviously share the concerns on the details or lack of details outlined by the Committee Chair and other Committee members. In particular, I note the comments of officials about the potential increase in opportunities for the local fishing fleet. The officials said that the main fishing opportunities are mostly in the Irish Sea and no major change to the quota is anticipated.
The Committee has not been afforded the time to properly explore the impact of the Bill on the North. There is no certainty about how or if the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund will be replaced. The EMFF is an important fund for the local fishing fleet. The Bill does not mention the post-Brexit impact on the migrant workers who currently make up 50% of those employed on trawlers in the North. As with all things, the fishing industry is heavily integrated North and South. Whether it is buyers, producers, processors or landings North and South, they are all interdependent, and the Bill does not take that into account. It remains unclear how the Bill will interact with the Irish protocol, and the uncertainty is complicated and compounded by the Internal Market Bill.
I have concerns that are, again, shared by representatives in other devolved Parliaments in Scotland and Wales that aspects of the policy that should be devolved can be overridden by clause 12, which gives power of decision to the British Government. Indeed, responsibility for the designation and management of marine protected areas in the North's waters will lie not with the Assembly, as it should, but with the British Secretary of State. The British Government will be responsible for deciding quotas.
Over and above that and with all the other aspects about amendments being taken out and the concerns shared by members of the AERA Committee, I do not think that we can allow the LCM to proceed.

Sinéad Ennis: I welcome the opportunity to air my views on the Bill. Simply put, the Bill is not fit for purpose. It is riddled with loopholes, contradictions and vague language. The British Government may claim that they are taking back their waters, but the Bill is being sold on the same false premise as Brexit was. If the British Government fail to reach an agreement with the EU by the end of this year, it will mean that control of the waters around these islands will be governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which requires cooperation on efforts to agree rules and access to waters as well as setting catch limits and standards on the conservation and management of marine resources. As my colleague and Chair of the AERA Committee, Declan McAleer, mentioned, there is no detail in the Bill of what will happen to migrant workers or of how the vital EU funding that the North's fishing industry receives will be replaced or how much.
As has been pointed out by the Welsh and Scottish Governments, Westminster has used every opportunity since Brexit to scale back devolution. Responsibility for the designation and management of marine protected areas in the North's offshore waters will not lie with the Assembly but with the Secretary of State. Clause 12 states that, although devolved Administrations will control their own fisheries, they will be subject to the terms and conditions of any trade agreements that the British Government make with other countries. We can develop all the regulations and rules that we like around access, environmental protection and sustainability, but it all counts for nothing once the British Government sign a deal with another trading bloc.
The British Government will be responsible for deciding how quotas are distributed between England, Scotland, Wales and the North. That is a huge conflict of interest given that the Tories have everything to gain from favouring fishermen in England and nothing to lose by dealing a bad hand to fishermen in Scotland, Wales and here in the North. Does anyone think that a Government who boasted only recently about breaking international law will see any issue with acting as poacher and gamekeeper when it comes to quotas?

Sinéad Bradley: Will the Member give way?

Sinéad Ennis: No, I will not. Thank you.
The Bill makes multiple references to how devolved Administrations will be consulted about various issues, such as landing requirements, but it does not make clear what the actual power of devolved Administrations will be on those issues. We know all too well here that being consulted by the British Government means nothing. We were consulted about our views on Brexit, and, on providing them, those views were promptly ignored. The Government have shown that they cannot be trusted. We require definitive language that cannot be misinterpreted or abused.
Other powers that should be in the hands of devolved institutions but are being reserved by Whitehall include provisions about fisheries and aquaculture and powers to impose quotas; limit time at sea; mandate processing procedures; determining what gear can be used and how; deciding how fisheries products can be marketed; imposing regulations over landings; and setting targets on marine stock and rules around enforcement. The Bill has little to say of substance about boats under 10 metres, which make up the majority of our fleet and are vital for the sustainability of our oceans and our coastal communities.
There is so much about the Bill that is unknown, ranging from how annex 2 of the protocol will affect fishermen and tariffs, to issues around migrant workers, abandoned vessels and boats owned in one jurisdiction but docked in another. How are we supposed to consent to something when we do not even fully know what we are supposed to be consenting to? The Bill is an attempt to shoehorn us into a framework that suits England. It is not cognisant of the interconnectedness and all-island nature of our local fishing industry.

Matthew O'Toole: There are specific and general concerns about the Bill to which we are being asked to give consent today. The provisions that establish an alternative to the common fisheries policy are necessary to regulate fishing in the UK following the end of the transition period. There is no denying that we need something to replace the provisions in retained EU law and the common fisheries policy. However, I put on record my frustration; the Bill is yet another example of rushed-through Brexit legislation that touches on a devolved competence that we are being asked to consent to with minimal opportunity for scrutiny and without information about what it means for local fisheries in the long term.
The Chair of the Committee mentioned earlier that his Committee had been able to take just one day of evidence. The Committee was also explicit in raising several concerns about the Bill in its reports. It noted that, due to the limited time to scrutinise the Bill, it has been unable to fully explore and understand the potential effects and implications for the local fishing industry and the associated processing industry, which are myriad, as we have discussed today.
In effect, we are being asked to give consent to a Bill and powers that we do not fully understand. That was the case yesterday, and I am afraid that it will be the case, probably, in the weeks and months to come. We are not being given sufficient time to debate and scrutinise the myriad legislation, both primary and secondary, that relates to Brexit.

Sinéad Bradley: I thank the Member for giving way. As a Member for the South Down constituency, I am fully aware of the many households that depend on the fishing industry for their main source of income. Is it true to say that the discussion here today has silenced those voices? There has not been an opportunity for those who are deeply invested in the welfare of the industry to give an opinion the Bill going through the House today.

Matthew O'Toole: As someone who grew up a few miles from Ardglass, I think that you are right. It is definitely clear that we need to hear from the local fishing industry in detail, albeit it is true that it also wants to see support.
It is also true, as people have mentioned on the other side of the Chamber, that large parts of the fishing industry have been sceptical about the common fisheries policy and other aspects of EU membership over the years. It is worth saying, however, that the majority of Northern Ireland's catch goes to the EU market. It is true that parts of our industry have disliked the quota system that has operated for several decades, but, having caught the fish, they recognise that they need a market in which to sell it.
I will go back to a couple of specific concerns. First, there are question marks, as others have said, over how the provisions interact with the protocol and, indeed, over whether they will comply with the commitments made to abide by EU regulation on things such as safety at sea, marine pollution, and fishing limits for species conservation in marine ecosystems. Another specific example that the Bill touches on is aquaculture. The Bill is silent on the aquaculture industries that are in cross-border bodies of water. It does not say anything about the trout in Lough Melvin or the oysters in Carlingford lough. I am afraid that it is a fact that we in Northern Ireland share bodies of water with the rest of Ireland, and we need to understand what DAERA is doing to reflect that.
Secondly, I agree with those who raised concerns about the fact that the attempt by the House of Lords to promote sustainability as the primary criterion for fishing stocks was removed from the Bill. That is regrettable. I ask the Minister to clarify his position on sustainability as it relates to Northern Ireland and its quotas.
Thirdly, there is an issue around the access that our fishing industry — trawlers and the fish and seafood processing industry — has to migrant labour. Frankly, both rely on it. It is a huge issue for them. Although the legislation does not reflect on immigration, it is the case that this is another sector in which a Northern Ireland industry is being negatively impacted on by the immigration policy being pursued by the Home Office. This should not be a question of your view on the protocol but a question of whether the UK Government will finally listen to Northern Ireland about how migration policy can be adjusted locally. I ask the Minister to take that matter up with his colleague in the Economy Department. As I said, it would be useful to hear from DAERA about how it plans to mitigate the negative impact that the new UK immigration policy would have on our skills base.
A couple of Members talked about the voisinage arrangement. Mr Storey mentioned it, the differential arrangements and the different approach taken by trawlers from the South. He is right that those are ongoing issues. No one hides away from them, but they are something that we need the Department to establish, and this legislation does not establish how the interaction will work between trawlers that move North/South.
Let us be absolutely clear: a lot of the fishing industry that has been most vocal about wanting Brexit and massively increased quotas is made up of fishing organisations in the north of Scotland. There is a simple reason for that. They get a hell of a lot more water to fish from. Much more fishing happens in the North Sea, which is much bigger, and they have much greater access to it. Fair enough. The UK waters in which Northern Ireland trawlers largely fish are in the Irish Sea. As others have mentioned, it is not clear that there is going to be a particular increase in quotas in the Irish Sea. Nor is it clear what is going to happen to Northern Ireland trawlers' access if they sail a few miles offshore from Kilkeel and into Irish waters. We therefore need to hear from the Department on how the Bill is going to affect that. If that involves bilateral working with Dublin, I am absolutely happy with that. I am glad that the Minister is willing —.

Steve Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Matthew O'Toole: I am more than happy to give way.

Steve Aiken: Thank you very much for raising an interesting point about our Northern Ireland fishing fleet. Of course, however, some of our fleet has the opportunity to fish in other United Kingdom waters, particularly down in the Celtic Sea. One of the biggest issues that we have in the Celtic Sea is that the French fishing fleet takes about 84% of the quota of cod. Perhaps with the changes that are likely to come out of this new fishing legislation, there will be greater opportunity for Northern Ireland fishing vessels to fish around our waters.

Matthew O'Toole: That is possibly the case. I do not know if the Member has spoken to many trawlers from Ardglass and Kilkeel who sail all the way down there. That is fine; they have to go through a lot of the Irish Sea to get to the Celtic Sea. That is fair enough. As I said, once they catch it, they need a market to sell it to. That is a critical point. It is clear that a lot of the fishing industry is frustrated with the way in which the common fisheries policy operated. No one disputes that, but it is also true that we need to have a market to sell the fish to. A large part of the market for fish from Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK and, indeed, the island of Ireland, has been in other parts of the UK. Unless we have a comprehensive deal that includes fisheries, we are going to have a severe market access problem. Do Members have a strategy for us comprehensively changing the fish that we consume here, because a lot of the fish that is landed here is not popular in our domestic market?
I move now to the question of the joint fisheries statement and the NI zone, which the Minister talked about in his introduction. It would be good to get clarity on the role of the Assembly and DAERA in the development of that new joint fisheries statement. As the Bill stands, it is unclear how that will operate. Members have talked about the new opportunities for trawlers, but the new opportunities for trawlers from Ardglass, Kilkeel and Portavogie are a little bit smaller than those for trawlers fishing out of Peterhead or Fraserburgh. If these are new opportunities, be explicit about what they are and how the joint fisheries statement will deliver on them. As the Bill stands, it is unclear how that will operate. In part, to be blunt, that is because Northern Ireland has smaller territorial waters than Scotland, for example.
The fact of the matter is that the UK, including Northern Ireland, exports a large proportion of the fish that we catch. Indeed, we import the majority of what is consumed domestically. Between 2014 and 2016, the EU made up 94% of Northern Ireland's international fish exports and 82% of its international fish imports. In 2016, the Northern Ireland fishing industry sold around £12·8 million to the local market and £28 million — well over double — to the EU market. Those are hard facts when it comes to market access. I respect what Members have said about people's objections to the common fisheries policy, and, yes, there needs to be a legal replacement for it, but let us be clear about market access and how that works. Access to EU markets will be critical for our fishing industry, going forward, but, unfortunately, we have little clarity on that.
Members have talked about the importance of the negotiations between the UK and the EU. The Minister mentioned that when he talked about clause 16 and reciprocal access. He and I have talked about the protocol. It is fair to say that we feel slightly differently, to put it diplomatically, about the delivery of the Ireland protocol. First, I gently remind him that he is duty-bound to deliver on it. Secondly, given what he said about clause 16, I hope that he agrees that it would be in the interests of our fishing industry and, more broadly, our economy, if the UK and EU could agree a deal, and that that should be something that is deliverable upon, because that would make everyone's life much easier. However, unfortunately in relation to the Bill, from what we have seen from the UK Government's approach to the negotiations, delivering on the protocol and, more broadly, protecting Northern Ireland, we have much to fear.
In conclusion, I understand the necessity for bringing the LCM to the House and the need for something to replace the common fisheries policy, but I have significant concerns which have yet to be answered about the specifics in relation to much in the Bill and how it will affect our fishing industry in Northern Ireland.

Roy Beggs: The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose, therefore, by leave of the House, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The first item of business when we return will be questions to the Minister for the Economy. This debate will resume immediately after Question Time, and the first Member who is scheduled to speak is Steve Aiken.
The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 12.59 pm.
On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McGlone] in the Chair) —

Oral Answers to Questions — Economy

Patsy McGlone: Question 1 has been withdrawn, as has topical question 4.

COVID-19: Support for NEETs

Claire Sugden: 2. Ms Sugden asked the Minister for the Economy how she is identifying and supporting young people, not in employment, education or training (NEETs), that feel isolated as a consequence of the response to COVID-19. (AQO 765/17-22)

Diane Dodds: In today's uncertain times, this is an important question for us, as a legislative Assembly, to consider.
My Department provides a range of support to young people who are not in employment, education or training, often referred to as "NEET". My Department administers the Northern Ireland European social fund (ESF) programme, which includes 18 NEET projects with a value of over £33 million.  The projects are specifically designed to support young people. Examples of the projects are wide-ranging across Northern Ireland. We have Bryson Charitable Group, Extern, GEMS, Include Youth, Job Directions, the South West College, Springboard, Stepping Stones NI, the Prince's Trust, Training for Women and YouthAction Northern Ireland, so it is really a very wide range of programmes that are supported through this part of my Department.
The Department for the Economy is also the Northern Ireland accountable Department for Peace4Youth, which aims to engage 7,400 young people who are disadvantaged, marginalised and not readily engaging with other programmes. The Careers Service provides all-age, all-ability careers guidance, with a priority focus on helping those vulnerable to social exclusion. Inevitably, the response to COVID-19 and the lockdown, in particular, has made it more difficult to deliver those vital services.  However, the services and projects have adapted to continue to provide much-needed support throughout the crisis. In March, Peace4Youth projects swiftly moved to online delivery to continue to support young people. ESF projects also moved to remote working. Some are now back working in their usual premises, where social distancing allows.  Since March, the Careers Service has made over 49,000 contacts with 16- to 18-year-olds to guide them in taking the next steps in their education, training or employment.

Patsy McGlone: I call John O'Dowd.

John O'Dowd: Do you want to call Claire for a supplementary?

Patsy McGlone: Oh, sorry. Excuse me.

Claire Sugden: Thank you, Deputy Speaker.
I appreciate the Minister's response. She talked about the European social fund: I have been contacted by a number of community and voluntary groups who are concerned about the future of that fund. If it is likely that that fund will no longer have a future, will her Department fund the shortfall, if it becomes an issue?

Diane Dodds: That is indeed an important and, again, topical and timely question on the issue. The European social fund funds a range of programmes, not just for young people who are not in employment or training but as part of the Northern Ireland apprenticeship programme. Therefore, it is very important to us that the Executive collectively engage with the UK Government to ensure that our national Government understand that, in the replacement for that European social fund — the shared prosperity fund — Northern Ireland is not at a disadvantage and gains the same amount of funding from that shared prosperity funding as it does from structural funds as they come to Northern Ireland and, importantlyl, that we are able to set our own priorities and objectives for the funding as a devolved legislature with responsibility devolved in those areas. The lead Department for this is the Department of Finance. It has been working on this, and, of course, I will continue to liaise with it and with Departments in London to make sure that those views are known. Current ESF funding is secure until 31 March 2022.

John O'Dowd: The Minister will be aware that, since 2007, despite increased investment in Invest NI, it has actually created fewer jobs year on year. Does the Minister agree that we need to hold what we have at the moment and that there should be increased investment in apprenticeships, youth services and our students, so that we create a future for the young people who have been so badly affected by COVID-19?

Diane Dodds: It is an important question. I think that the House will agree that, through my actions as Minister for the Economy, we have invested significantly in apprenticeships, youth training and the skills agenda in Northern Ireland. That is not just important for holding what we have but for developing the economy of the future and the skills pipeline that will go into that. That is an important aspect. The Department has been proactive in looking not just at apprenticeships but at careers delivery and other short-term interventions that will help to build the Northern Ireland economy, build skills and engage our young people into the future.
I just want to focus for one second on one of those programmes, which has been very important, namely the assured skills academies that we have run. Those have been very successful in delivering proper training and jobs for young people in difficult circumstances. I refer to the Microsoft cybersecurity academy, which was completed in Northern Ireland on 12 June, delivered at the height of lockdown and delivered completely online. Of the 24 young people who engaged in that skills academy, 23 found employment out of it. Those long-term skills programmes and the ability to be flexible and match skills to labour market demand is really important.
With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will answer the other part of the Member's question. It is really important that, while we build our skills base and support companies in Northern Ireland, we recognise the importance of foreign direct investment in Northern Ireland. Since April, I have announced over 1,000 new jobs, even in the midst of incredibly difficult economic circumstances in Northern Ireland. Six hundred of those new jobs have been announced by North American and US companies. That shows the importance of those companies investing in Northern Ireland. I look forward to talking to the special envoy to Northern Ireland tomorrow and building the relationships that allow those skills and job pipelines to continue.

Patsy McGlone: I just remind the Minister of the two-minute rule. If you require additional time, perhaps you would ask for it before you answer, please, Minister. Thank you.

Cara Hunter: Is the Minister engaging with the Department of Education in order to deliver an effective strategy to deal with young people who are leaving school with low qualifications and at risk of unemployment?

Diane Dodds: Before the Assembly collapsed in earlier times, the Minister of Education and the Minister for the Economy were working together on a strategy for 14- to 19-year-olds to look at the pathways that young people take at that age, the choices that they make and how we can improve services for them. Very early on, before the impact of COVID in this mandate, I had been talking to the Department of Education on that issue. We have now re-engaged with that work stream. I would like, in conjunction with the Department of Education, to bring forward a strategy that allows young people at 14 to 19 years old not just to look at traditional paths but to look at alternative paths towards their career prospects. We will help all of our young people in progressing their career prospects. We are also talking about creating that digital spine for Northern Ireland. We will try to incorporate those skills for our young people, right the way through from primary school until they leave education, preparing them for the world of work and the economy of the future.

Mike Nesbitt: The Prime Minister has just announced a scheme in England for adults without an A-level or equivalent qualification where they will have access to a fully funded college course with an emphasis on "skills valued by employers". Can the Minister assure adults in a similar position in this jurisdiction that they will not be disadvantaged?

Diane Dodds: I am extremely concerned about the 20% of the workforce who have no formal qualifications. It is an issue that the Assembly and the Executive will have to address in the long term. In the short term, we have been working with adults and with everyone, really, who has been affected by the impact of COVID on their employment. Our skills strategy division has been able to support 2,000 individuals impacted by COVID-19, helping them to achieve one of over 90 online fully accredited qualifications in key areas including digital, leadership, management and employability. A second phase of the programme will complete by March 2021. We hope that it will support a further 3,000 individuals, including those who have been furloughed or made redundant or who are availing of the self-employment scheme. It will include collaborative approaches from further education on placement and to support women to return and get training in information technology. That is work that the Department is already engaged in and fully cognisant of.

Stewart Dickson: Minister, will you recognise the despair of my constituents, when you have recently told the House, in a previous answer, that you hope that the UK Government understand the value of EU funds that have been distributed in Northern Ireland? Surely, you and your party would not have dragged us out of the EU if you are only now conducting those negotiations with the UK Government.

Diane Dodds: I shall resist, just this once, the Brexit issues in order to focus on the really important issue of skills in the Northern Ireland economy. I have been proactively engaging with my counterparts in London on the issue of the European social fund and its replacement, the shared prosperity fund. I will further support the Finance Minister as he seeks a full replacement of those funds for Northern Ireland. It is absolutely important that we are able to progress these issues for the people of Northern Ireland, for the young people of Northern Ireland and particularly for the economy of the future of Northern Ireland.

Post-Brexit Trade Arrangements

Trevor Lunn: 3. Mr Lunn asked the Minister for the Economy, given the short timescale before the end of the transition period and that Northern Ireland will only have access to trade deals as part of the United Kingdom, for an update on progress on the prospects for trading arrangements. (AQO 766/17-22)

Diane Dodds: During my time as Minister for the Economy, I have continued to work with our national Government to ensure that UK international trade policy works for the people of Northern Ireland. It has been my priority that Northern Ireland will be able to access transitioned EU trade deals and new UK trade agreements. I have had extensive engagement with the Minister of State in the Department for International Trade through the Ministerial Forum for Trade and via bilateral meetings on matters of interest to Northern Ireland.
I have sought assurances that Northern Ireland will be covered fully in the scope of trade agreements, that our industry will be protected from unfair practices and that our businesses can remain competitive, both in the UK internal market and globally, despite the complexities of the protocol.
From that perspective, it is critical to recognise that Great Britain is our most important market, accounting for almost £24 billion of trade in 2018. During the same period, trade with the EU, including the Republic of Ireland, amounted to £12·1 billion and trade with the rest of the world to £6·9 billion. In other words, we did more trade in the GB market than in all of the other markets added together. Therefore, it is very important that, when we are looking at international trade, we are also protecting our trade with our internal UK market.
In tandem, I have been encouraging the UK Government to pursue with vigour a comprehensive trade agreement with the European Union. I support the Government’s ambition to have an agreement that supports our trade with Europe and, through supply-chain activity, our trade via Europe that goes into international markets.

Trevor Lunn: I thank the Minister for her comprehensive answer. The figures for trade with the European Union and the rest of the world are still very significant, Minister, and we may need them even more when this thing is settled. Given the British Government's success in trashing our international reputation, as seen in the explicit statements from the United States, particularly from Mr Mulvaney, just yesterday, about the consequences of interfering with the Good Friday Agreement, how does the Minister assess the potential, for example, for a trading agreement with America?

Diane Dodds: First of all, it is vital that Northern Ireland is able to trade within UK trade agreements on an equal basis to every other part of the United Kingdom. That, of course, is complicated by the protocol, and I fail to understand why many parties in the House rush headlong to demand a full implementation, no less, of a protocol that would potentially restrict trade within the UK's internal market. Therefore, while trade with the rest of the world, including the European Union and the Republic of Ireland, is vital, and I do not underestimate it or diminish it in any sense at all, it is of utter importance to Northern Ireland that trade within the UK's internal market is able to continue unencumbered by restrictions imposed by the Northern Ireland protocol. I think that is massively important.
It is also extremely important that we are able to trade with other international markets. Trade within the current EU free trade agreements that have been rolled over is worth £110 billion to the UK. We have some outstanding trade agreements with the EU that are very significant to Northern Ireland that have still not been renegotiated by the Government. They include agreements with Canada, Mexico, Turkey and Norway. Canada is our second largest rest of the world trading partner, with an estimated £632 million of trade in 2019.
In terms of the US trade deal, again, America is an extremely important market for Northern Ireland companies, and the fourth negotiation on the US trade deal took place between the 8 and 18 September, and —.

Patsy McGlone: Minister, sorry to interrupt, but we have overshot by quite a bit. I thought you were finished with that.

Diane Dodds: Could I give just two more stats, which I think are very important? With your permission Mr Deputy Speaker.

Patsy McGlone: Just very briefly, please.

Diane Dodds: Again, trade negotiations with Australia began again on 22 September, and we are looking forward to trade negotiations with New Zealand on 19 October.

Gordon Dunne: I thank the Minister for her answers, and for her efforts in working with businesses during the COVID crisis. Invest NI has an important role in supporting businesses through this terrible crisis. What other support is available from Invest NI and the Department for the Economy to help struggling businesses to come through this ongoing crisis?

Diane Dodds: I thank the Member for his question. Over the course of the pandemic, my Department has administered £400 million in grant schemes and helped 30,000 businesses in Northern Ireland. That has not been perfect nor are we able to say that it covered the full scope of the business spectrum. However, that help has been extremely important in sustaining businesses and skills in a difficult time.
If we continue on the Brexit theme, Invest NI is offering Brexit preparation grants. I am glad that the Member raised this issue because we need to get the message out that a full toolkit of resources is available within Invest NI to help businesses to prepare for the end of the transition period. InterTradeIreland also has a significant level of interventions in place. I encourage Members to convey these messages to businesses so that they can get the help that they need in the circumstances that we find ourselves.

Rachel Woods: I thank the Minister for her answers so far. Can the Minister outline if she or her Department contributed to any response from the Executive to the UK Government's internal market White Paper consultation in June, especially in relation to future trading relationships and the NI protocol?

Diane Dodds: We continue to engage with our partners in government and responded to the White Paper. While there are many views in the House on the Internal Market Bill, and I suspect that they would not all accord with my view, there are principles that we need to acknowledge and accept as being vital for Northern Ireland.
The Internal Market Bill looks at unfettered access in the case of a no-deal and the EU refuses to acknowledge GB as a third country. It is vital that Northern Ireland firms have unfettered access to the GB market.
Other issues are of equal importance in relation to access to our markets. We need our Government to tell us how, in conjunction with the Joint Committee, they are going to define goods at risk. That will be important in getting those goods from GB, our largest market, into Northern Ireland.
We also need, as a matter of great importance and urgency, the issue of a Northern Ireland qualifying good resolved. The Northern Ireland qualifying good, and some of the issues around that, would stop others from using the Republic of Ireland as a back door into the GB market, and, therefore, impacting on Northern Ireland firms' competitiveness in that market.
There are many issues to be resolved. We could talk about state aid, and the fact that Northern Ireland would be encumbered with EU state aid regulations while the rest of the United Kingdom would be free to make more-generous subsidies available for businesses if it were so inclined.
I want Northern Ireland to succeed —

Patsy McGlone: Minister —

Diane Dodds: — and I want its economy to succeed.

Apprenticeships

Catherine Kelly: 4. Ms C Kelly asked the Minister for the Economy to outline the impact of leaving the European Union will have on funding available for upskilling workers and apprenticeships. (AQO 767/17-22)

Diane Dodds: EU funding contributes to increasing the skills base of those currently in employment and future potential participants and part funds DFE apprenticeship programmes.
My Department currently receives £10·4 million per annum from the European social fund (ESF) to fund our Apprenticeships NI and higher level apprenticeship programmes. Any funding loss will restrict our ability to recruit new apprentices or fully see out the upskilling of existing apprentices on those programmes. In order to maintain the scale of those programmes, the shortfall in funding will need to be sourced and funded. That is currently being considered as part of my Department’s succession planning for provision post-EU exit.
The Department of Finance is leading the case for full replacement of EU funding in Northern Ireland. Given the amount of funding that historically came to my Department for economic development, energy, skills and apprenticeships, the Department has been liaising closely with Finance and relevant Westminster Ministers to ensure that our needs and priorities are reflected in those negotiations.

Catherine Kelly: I thank the Minister for her answer. The Minister recently made a bid for £22·6 million so that the European social fund money could continue to be provided from April 2022 to March 2023. She will be aware of how important that ESF funding is in tackling youth unemployment. With considerable numbers of young people now being made redundant, does the Minister accept that the loss of European funding will have a detrimental impact on support for young people, particularly with the loss of the European social fund?

Diane Dodds: While it is important to acknowledge that the European social fund has done significant and some very good work in Northern Ireland around the subject that we were talking about earlier — those young people who are not in employment or training and in funding apprenticeships — we are currently engaged in negotiations with our national Government around the replacement for that funding, which is the shared prosperity fund. The parameters that the Finance Minister has set for that is that we should receive the same amount of funding from the shared prosperity fund as we currently do from the European social fund. With that, we are at common cause with our colleagues in Scotland and Wales.
After we have established broad frameworks for that shared prosperity fund, I would like to see the detail of that fund being administered, directed and guided by the needs of Northern Ireland and by this Assembly in exercising its functions under the devolved Administration solutions.

Patsy McGlone: Very briefly, we can have a quick question from Pat Catney and a quick answer too, please.

Pat Catney: Every job is vital. We all know that, and this House is aware of that. Those who go out and take risks in order to start businesses are risk takers, but, on top of that, we need training. I want a quick yes or no from the Minister. Has the Minister communicated those updates with the regional colleges? I am aware of businesses that have taken part in the scheme
[Inaudible]
on additional apprenticeships for those students so that they can find that employment? Is the Minister aware of the uptake in apprenticeships in the regional colleges —?

Patsy McGlone: I did say, "Quick question".
[Laughter.]

Diane Dodds: I thank the Member for his question. I am in constant communication with all our further education colleges, and I will continue to monitor the situation. The scheme will commence in November as furlough ends for young apprentices. We are encouraging employers to bring back young apprentices and to retain them right through to the completion of their apprenticeships.
We are also offering funding for employers who want to create new apprenticeships. This week, I launched the apprenticeship challenge fund for Northern Ireland, and the work of the further education colleges will be absolutely vital in that. After the scheme is formally launched in November, I will continue to monitor the progress of the scheme so that we can ensure that employers, businesses and colleges are able to work together.

Patsy McGlone: That concludes the period for listed questions. We now move to topical questions.

Economic Recovery Plan

Dolores Kelly: T1. Mrs D Kelly asked the Minister for the Economy when the Assembly will have sight of a substantive economic recovery plan, with built-in resilience for the new normal and clear and measurable outcomes and targets. (AQT 441/17-22)

Diane Dodds: I thank the Member for her question. She will be aware that in June I published my short- and medium-term recovery plan, 'Rebuilding a Stronger Economy'. It looked at not only the short-term but the medium-term issues that we will have to address. It also gave a vision for the future of the Northern Ireland economy. I want such an economy to take Northern Ireland into its second century and to look at new opportunities and the sectors in which we can do well — the digital sector, cybersecurity — and in which we are already a world leader. I want it not only to grab those opportunities for the new economy for Northern Ireland but to support our traditional firms and manufacturing base, and the values that we all hold very dear. That has been adopted as part of the Executive's recovery strategy. In the meantime, my Department and I are working on a strategy for the economy, which, we hope, will be ready in due course. I emphasise that I am not waiting for a strategy; I am taking the necessary steps to help the Northern Ireland economy in unprecedented circumstances.

Dolores Kelly: In the new working normal, if you like, I wonder about the opportunities for individuals, firms and businesses to access agencies such as Invest NI to discuss those issues. What plans does the Minister have for easy access and easy business, and the role that councils might play?

Diane Dodds: I do not know whether the Member has seen my mailbox recently, but as a Member for Upper Bann as opposed to being the Economy Minister, I have agreed to meet the local economic development agency of the ABC council. I look forward to that meeting, to which I intend to bring representatives of Invest NI in order to ensure that information is readily available and to make the necessary links between government agencies or arm's-length agencies of the Department and councils.
I continue to work with councils on the city deals strategy for Northern Ireland. As part of our medium- to long-term recovery, that is a very exciting mechanism by which to introduce new and innovative ideas. We have £500 million of new funding for innovation in Northern Ireland, which is a significant amount for our economy. We now need to progress the city deals as part of that strategy. As a local Member, I will discuss that with the council.

COVID-19: Students

Paul Givan: T2. Mr Givan asked the Minister for the Economy, given that she will know that some students at our universities are having to self-isolate because of COVID-19, for an update on the conversations that she has had with our universities about how those issues are being addressed and the students supported. (AQT 442/17-22)

Diane Dodds: I thank the Member for his question, which is important and timely. Our student population needs a clear message, and we need to support students in the circumstances in which they find themselves. I understand that university representatives met Executive Office officials this morning, and I also spoke to the universities this morning. Later this week, I will speak to student leaders to take their views. I want a more holistic approach to the issue.
Again, I appeal to our student population, remembering that the vast and overwhelming bulk of our young people and students will be respectful of the regulations and respectful of one another, and I ask them to respect the regulations, practise good hand hygiene, keep to social distancing, wear masks and obey the rules around campus so that they can keep themselves, their friends and their families safe.

Paul Givan: I thank the Minister for that response and commend her for the work that she is doing and for engaging with the universities. In that engagement, can she continue to get assurances from those who run our universities that everything possible is being done to maximise the opportunity for our students to learn? Significant fees are being paid, there are accommodation costs and the implications of reduced face-to-face contact are diminishing the experience that students get at universities, and they are asking questions about value for money. Can she ensure that the authorities in our universities are doing everything possible to provide that education?

Diane Dodds: I assure the Member that I will continue to engage with the universities on that issue. I am acutely aware that many young people who have just gone to university for the first time, are living on their own and are struck with these kinds of situations will feel lonely and isolated, and we need to support our young students through what is a very difficult time.
I am also aware of the issues around the balance between online learning and face-to-face learning, and I think that the universities will have to work very hard to get this one right. Obviously, in some courses that have a more practical element, the universities will offer more face-to-face learning. However, I do not want our young people to have a poor experience at university. For many of us here who went to university, we look back at it with great fondness as a time in our lives when, as young people, we were pretty carefree and were able to do things. We are in unprecedented circumstances, and we want to support young people to learn and support universities to do the right thing by them.

COVID-19: Second Lockdown

Maurice Bradley: T3. Mr M Bradley asked the Minister for the Economy, in the light of the concerning reports about the spread of COVID-19 across Northern Ireland in recent weeks, what impact another lockdown would have on our economy. (AQT 443/17-22)

Diane Dodds: I thank the Member for his question. It is extremely important. We are very concerned about the community transmission of COVID throughout our communities, and, of course, the health of our communities and of the people of Northern Ireland is of paramount importance to us, but it is equally important to say, here in the Chamber and with great clarity, that Northern Ireland simply cannot afford another lockdown.
If we think back to the provisions of the schemes in March, April and May and we look at the Chancellor's statement of last week, that will reinforce my view that, while we have to look after our health — that is absolutely vital — we also need to learn to work and live knowing that this virus is in our communities. Even the fear of another lockdown would impact on business confidence.
Therefore, again, I appeal to communities right across Northern Ireland to be careful, remember social distancing, remember good hand hygiene, look after one another, particularly the older and more vulnerable in our communities, and remember that, in order to keep our businesses going and to keep jobs and livelihoods in Northern Ireland, we have to do these things.

Maurice Bradley: Thank you very much, Minister, for that answer. Minister, we are faced with a trade-off between health and economic activity, and I fear that we will not know the full impact on our economy until the end of the current furlough arrangements. I urge the Minister to look at innovative ways in which to create job opportunities and employment as we eventually come out of furlough and restrictions, and to challenge Invest NI to widen its horizons with regard to investment across Northern Ireland.

Diane Dodds: Again, I thank the Member for his question. I am on record as saying that I think that, with the furlough scheme ending in October, there is potential for a further spike in redundancies. Over the last period, we have seen around 9,000 redundancies in Northern Ireland, 4,000 of which have already been confirmed. That situation could get worse. To keep our economy functioning, we must keep businesses open. To keep businesses open, we must obey the health advice and all of the regulations.
I am saddened that there are restrictions on the hospitality sector in Northern Ireland. I believe that the hospitality sector has acted responsibility and with good faith and has interacted with the Executive and particularly with me as the Minister for the Economy. Therefore, I want to see those restrictions lifted and lessened as much as we can. We all have it in our own power to do that. We need to exercise personal responsibility and obey the regulations. We also need to ensure that our economy and our businesses remain open and that the world knows that Northern Ireland is open for business.
With your permission to continue, Mr Speaker, I was really delighted to attend the Irish Open at the weekend and to see players from all over the world competing in Ballymena and to know that the message that Northern Ireland is open for business and can put on these events safely was going right across the world. That is an important message for us to get out to potential investors and those who would look to come to visit us.

Tourism and Sport: Economic Potential

Robin Newton: T5. Mr Newton asked the Minister for the Economy, after admitting that she had stolen his original question, which was about the Irish Open at Ballymena, whether she sees the potential for tourism and sport to work together for the future of the Northern Ireland economy, given that tourism is an essential, growing and significant part of the economy, with sport having played a great part in developing that offering. (AQT 445/17-22)

Diane Dodds: I thank the Member for his question. From talking to members of the European Tour and to representatives of the Royal and Ancient who were in Ballymena for the Irish Open, I think that there is a really great future for that combination of tourism and sport to really excel in Northern Ireland. I look forward to Northern Ireland hosting more of these really big events. I think that it is a wonderful opportunity to showcase all that is good about Northern Ireland. My goodness, I am sure that we all saw that Billy O'Kane's cows became an internet sensation during the weekend.
On a serious note, it is really important that we sustain our tourism and hospitality industries right through these very difficult winter months and that, when we look at 2021, we will have new opportunities to invest and build on the tremendous work that tourism and hospitality does and the jobs that it provides in Northern Ireland.

Patsy McGlone: You may ask a very brief supplementary question, Mr Newton.

Robin Newton: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the Minister's words. Can she elaborate on one or two events that she might expect to come on our radar in the future?

Diane Dodds: Of course, I have been talking to some of those big events. I am not going to make any announcements today, but I think that we have an interesting and exciting pipeline of events that will come to Northern Ireland. In speaking as an MLA for Upper Bann, I cannot resist saying that I am also hugely excited by the new 'Game of Thrones' experience that will be opening in my constituency, which has the potential to create jobs and many more tourists and prosperity.

Patsy McGlone: Thank you for that. That concludes questions to the Minister for the Economy. Members should now take their ease while we rotate Ministers in the Chamber. Thank you.

Oral Answers to Questions — Education

Schools: Single-use Plastics

Rachel Woods: 1. Miss Woods asked the Minister of Education for his assessment of the use of single-use plastics in schools. (AQO 776/17-22)

Peter Weir: I thank the Member for her question. While my Department and the Education Authority (EA) have taken action over a number of years to reduce the amount of single-use plastic in schools, the current pandemic has had two impacts: no development or progression of any further work has been possible; and it has led to a greater use of disposable products in order to minimise the risk of transmission.
The Education Authority recognises this issue and is conscious of the impact of single-use plastics in the school environment. The measures currently being taken under the Education Restart programme are, I stress, of a temporary and emergency nature. The resources deployed and decisions made in relation to school safety and reduction in the risk of infection are based on the latest ongoing and continuously updated advice from the Northern Ireland Public Health Agency (PHA) to minimise or eliminate the spread of COVID-19 between and within the home and school settings.

Rachel Woods: I thank the Minister for his answer. However, he will be aware of the increased plastic pollution that is arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. More face masks, gloves, plastic bottles and food packaging will end up in landfill or dumped in our rivers and seas, all of which will have a devastating impact on our environment, wildlife and marine life. Will the Minister outline what actions the Department will take to reduce the use of single-use plastics and promote the eco-friendly alternatives, given that there are so many?

Peter Weir: As I said, the position is that some action has been taken, and there is engagement with the EA and schools. There is also a role for all of us to play as individuals. There are complications. You mentioned face coverings, for example, and a limited amount can be done directly in connection with how they are disposed of. In the COVID situation, one of the drivers in the increased use of plastics — this is where there is a critical role for parents and families — is that plastics cannot be reused because of the risk of child to child cross-contamination. However, there is an opportunity. Let us take bottled water and its packaging as one example. I encourage parents who are supplying drinks for children to bring into school to use a single receptacle that can be used multiple times by one child. From that point of view, when it comes to what is done directly in schools, it is not always about what the individual does or risks through the multiple use of something; it is about the risk of cross-contamination through something being used by a number of people. Simple steps of that nature can be taken: parents can give their child a single container, and the child can drink what has been supplied in that container as well as reusing it when accessing water at school. I know that many Members and people in other walks of life bring a single container with them, for instance, so that, in an environmental way, they are able to reuse that product. It is about thinking in that intelligent way. Partnership is needed between what happens directly in schools and what parents are able to do themselves.

Philip McGuigan: Further to the answer that the Minister gave to Miss Woods, specifically in relation to COVID, what advice, guidance or instruction will he give to schools to try to reduce the amount of single-use plastic in schools beyond the COVID pandemic?

Peter Weir: A lot of good work has been done already. The EA will continue to engage directly with schools. It is about that level of interaction. Schools are given a high level of autonomy as to what they do, but there has to be encouragement to find novel solutions. For example, the EA has used competitions, and we, as a Department, have worked with DAERA to highlight the use of plastic and try to reduce it. We want to get that buy-in. It is about schools themselves, or individual pupils through those competitions, taking actions to improve their own environment. The EA also put in place an incentive whereby, if schools can reduce the amount of waste that they produce, that can help to reduce their waste disposal costs. That will then feed directly into the budgets. Everybody knows the extent to which, even in normal times, school budgets tend to get stretched. If we can reduce those costs, we can get a win-win solution for schools.

Mark Durkan: This is pretty appropriate given that my daughter Lily, who is six today, was re-elected onto her school's eco-council yesterday. Further to the Minister's answer to Miss Woods and the particular example that he used of reusable bottles, will the Minister give any consideration to funding schools to provide pupils with said reusable bottles?

Peter Weir: We will certainly look at that within any budgetary constraints. There is an onus on parents as well. Maybe I am slightly distracted by the nightmare vision of another generation of Durkans entering elected politics.

COVID-19: Education Settings

Linda Dillon: 2. Ms Dillon asked the Minister of Education to outline the number of education settings that have experienced positive COVID-19 cases. (AQO 777/17-22)

Peter Weir: I thank the Member for her question. We are working with the PHA and the Education Authority to consider how best to provide the information in an accurate and timely way. The information that we have so far is that, over the last month or so, around 180 schools have made a direct enquiry to the PHA. However, that can be misleading because it is spread over a month. It is also the case that an enquiry could be simply about checking when somebody displays symptoms but there is no indication of a positive case. It can be something that is impacting on one pupil or member of staff, or it can be much more wider. So, the figures are potentially a little bit misleading.
We have figures that indicate the levels of school attendance. We are now able to gather those on a weekly basis, which gives us a tracker. Similarly, although it is taken on a slightly different time frame, we also have figures that relate to the number of teachers and education staff who are in. I will be happy to follow up on those issues but, in both cases, the figures suggest a very high level of school attendance. We obviously anticipate a dip given current circumstances. However, it does show that, in Northern Ireland — compared, for instance, to England and Wales, where the figures show that there has been quite a large number of absences — there has been both a very strong and welcome commitment from education staff, who want to be on the front line teaching children directly, and a very strong buy-in to and valuation of education from parents. A small number of children, because of clinical vulnerability, will not be in a position to attend school. However, the figures suggest a very high level of success in getting children directly into school following resumption.

Linda Dillon: I thank the Minister for his answer. I also thank him for coming to St Joseph's Primary School in Galbally in my constituency last week. They did some very good work with remote learning during lockdown. Potentially, there may be a lot more remote learning if bubbles are isolating or full schools have to close down. A lot of leeway was given to some schools that maybe did not perform as well as St Joseph's in Galbally did with the remote-learning process. We need assurance from the Minister that there will be equity across the board for young people in what they get from their school and in accessing remote learning. As we know, not every family has electronic devices, and some families have a large number of children and maybe only one electronic device.

Peter Weir: The Member raises a number of valid points. A lot of schools rose very successfully to the challenge of remote learning, but it was not uniform. It is difficult to enforce something that is completely uniform. Indeed, sometimes even the approach taken by individual teachers within a school will differ. Two pupils at the same school but in different classes may find that there is not absolute consistency throughout. It also highlights that, while a lot of very intelligent and innovative work was done, remote learning is effectively second best to direct classroom learning, as everybody in the system will concede. That is why the focus has to be on ensuring the maximum amount.
The Member mentioned devices. There has been procurement of devices. We want to find a way in which we can ensure that those are obtained, for instance, where some parents may be a bit shy or nervous about asking for a device.
There is another limitation. I am sure that the Member for Mid Ulster will know of this, as indeed will Members from parts of the west of the Province. Some work has been done on connectivity with BT, for instance, but there will be patches throughout Northern Ireland where, despite the best will in the world — you could have every device in the world — the internet connection is so poor that it does not lend itself to that. In that case, some schools have had to operate by way of paper packs. Again, that is probably one step removed.
There is also a need to ensure that groups are identified for the provision of particular support. For instance, yesterday, I met a group that deals and works with and provides support for children who are visually impaired. There are different challenges there. There will be particular challenges around a number of issues. However, the main aim must be to get the maximum number of children directly into class.

Alan Chambers: I am sure that the Minister shares my concern about the temporary closure of St Comgall's Primary School in Bangor. Can he assure me that his departmental officials are engaging with the school and offering help and advice as required to ensure the continuing welfare of the staff and pupils?

Peter Weir: There has been that case and another case in Saul. In both cases, we will be working alongside the schools. It may be wrong to drill down too much into the detail of individual cases, but, as far as I am aware, both cases do not directly involve the children. In each case, more than one teacher has been directly involved. That has created an issue of staffing more so than an issue of teaching the children. We are working alongside those schools. I hope, in both cases, to see resumption of full school activity. Both schools are working with the Department and the Education Authority. As both are maintained schools, they are working closely alongside the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) as well. We want to get a resumption of those schools as quickly as possible, certainly before we reach the point of the 14 days. I am hopeful that that will be the case.
It is also the case that, as a result of this, a number of teachers were identified as "close contact". Close contact is clearly defined as principally those who have been within 2 metres for more than 15 minutes. In any school — there may be exceptional circumstances — that may create a situation where a group of individuals are impacted. In some cases, it can even move as far as a part or the whole of a class. It should not impact on the entire school, unless it is a very small one.
Sometimes those schools may take a precautionary measure following advice to, for instance, have a deep clean, which would require the vacancy. However, there should not really be a situation, except on only very rare occasions, where we see an entire school closed for 14 days. That would not really fall within the public health advice that has been given about close contact. We work with schools on their individual circumstances, and whatever is put in place, there will always be some exception that may require a wider solution.

Andrew Muir: My question also relates to St Comgall's Primary School in Bangor. Our first thoughts are with those who have been diagnosed positive with COVID, and we hope that they have a speedy recovery.
I thank the Minister for the clarity that is being given today on the circumstances on this matter. What more can be done to improve communications in order to assuage the anxiety and concern amongst parents, pupils and staff about the situation so that the full 14-day closure can be avoided?

Peter Weir: Sometimes schools will need to take very quick decisions and instantaneous action, and that might mean taking an initial approach that is arguably more precautionary that may then, in the light of whenever things are looked at, be beyond what really is directly required. There is a need for that close coordination between EA, schools and PHA. I know that CCMS, for instance, will also be trying to give a level of reassurance. In the couple of cases that have arisen, the issues have been to do with keyholders and the chain of command. There have been instances where principals had to self-isolate not because they were diagnosed positive, to be fair, but because they were in close contact with somebody who was diagnosed positive.
It is about trying to minimise the level of disruption. It will be a very rare occasion that a large number of pupils will be in the position of having to self-isolate for 14 days. That will happen where there has been direct contact. One of the questions asked is if somebody has been told to self-isolate but has not been diagnosed positive, does their sibling, for instance, have to self-isolate? No, because that is one further step removed. It is about that precautionary measure for those who have had direct contact.
In the early days, there were sometimes different interpretations of that. It is understandable that schools will quite often take an overly cautious approach in the first instance. That is why we need to work directly where it arises in any school.

Transfer Tests

Steve Aiken: 3. Dr Aiken asked the Minister of Education whether any provisions have been made for pupils to take transfer tests in their primary school, in order to maintain COVID-19 bubbles. (AQO 778/17-22)

Peter Weir: I thank the Member for his question. As he will be aware, my Department does not play a direct role in the administration or operation of the transfer tests, including their location. However, I highlight that, although until 2016 there were memos from the Department saying that primary schools were not to be used for transfer tests, when changes were made in the last Administration, memos were sent out that indicated that there is no bar to prevent any primary school hosting the tests. That remains the position today. It is a matter for the test providers and individual schools. The current arrangements for holding the tests have been agreed between the test providers and the schools that use the results as part of their admissions criteria.
Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the test providers and host schools to ensure that appropriate safety and social-distancing measures are put in place in the test centres, wherever the tests are held, and that the Chief Medical Officer and Public Health Authority's advice is followed.

Steve Aiken: I thank the Minister for his comments so far. As a point of disclosure, I should say, as you are well aware, that I am a member of a board of governors, and, like another honourable Member here, I have two young daughters in school who are going through a similar process. However, you will be very glad to know that they have no intention whatsoever of ever going into politics, and thank goodness for that.
We are being asked time and time again about maintaining the bubbles and the bubbling principle in our primary schools. Bearing that in mind, I understand that the provision of the Association for Quality Education (AQE) test is not your specific responsibility, but can you indicate whether you think that this is the way that we should approach that matter and that doing it that way provides the impetus between the schools and the examination bodies to maintain the bubbles? That would be welcomed by all schools, all parents and, indeed, by children.

Peter Weir: I would like to see a situation in which we develop to a point where there is common agreement on transfer, but I suspect that is unlikely. The ideal situation is that every child would be able to sit the test in their own primary school. Part of the problem is that the tests are provided by independent bodies, who therefore have control over that. I appreciate that Members have different views on the test, but if we are to do it on a fair and equitable basis it can only be done if we get full buy-in from primary schools. While there are difficulties and additional pressures on children because they are not doing it in their own primary school, it would be a less equitable position if some children were able to do it in their own primary school and others were not, because that does not create a level playing field.
Whatever people's views on the transfer test, it is largely a competitive process between those sitting the test because they are trying to obtain places in particular schools. If we ended up with a situation in which, for example, 50% of primary schools said they were happy to do it and 50% said they were not, a child sitting the test in their home primary school, and another sitting it in a different place would not provide a level playing field. We have to bear that in mind as well.

Karen Mullan: Minister, following the release of today's Audit Office report calling for an urgent review of special educational needs, would you not be better directing your efforts to children with special education needs, rather than trying to facilitate this unregulated test during a health pandemic?

Peter Weir: Although I suspect it may come up and I may be able to make very brief comments at some stage on the Audit Office report, there is a restriction on what I can say directly about it. The report will be considered at a meeting of the PAC on, I think, 15 or 16 October, and the convention is that comment is not passed ahead of that.
I appreciate that the Member probably comes from a very different angle on selection and transfer tests than I do, but it is not simply an either/or situation. As the Minister, the Department and I will try to do our best to look after children with special educational needs, we will try to look after the broader issue of transfer, and we will look after children in terms of their general school career. There is a very wide spectrum of things that we need to do. It is not a question of concentration on one issue to the exclusion of another. Even for those transferring at P7, there will be those who will do the test and those who will not. Our role, particularly as a Department, will be to try to make sure that that transition and transfer, in what are still going to be very difficult days ahead because of COVID, are done smoothly and effectively. I do not see this as an either/or situation.

Jim Allister: In regard to transfer, will the Minister agree that the best long-term solution is to recommission the test as a Departmental test, and will he follow his heart and his head on that?

Peter Weir: I am glad that the Member can look into both my heart and my head. It is a skill that I am sure he has developed over the years. I think there are two issues about getting agreement on transfer. First, if I as the Minister were simply to go on a solo run and say, "Here is a DE test", I suspect something like that would be very quickly called in by the Executive as a controversial issue.
Secondly, we also need to give people a level of long-term certainty. If we have a situation in which one particular action in terms of a state test is done by one Minister, and then a different Minister, with a very different view, simply cancels that, you would be throwing people between different situations.

Jim Allister: So Sinn Féin rules?

Peter Weir: Sorry, what was that?

Jim Allister: So Sinn Féin rules?

Peter Weir: No, the Member is saying that —.

Patsy McGlone: Sorry, just a moment, Minister. If Members wish to ask questions they should rise. Please, no comments from a seated position.

Peter Weir: The Member says that, but we have a power-sharing situation. If, as I heard him say, Sinn Féin had its way, there is no doubt that they would simply have abolished academic selection and transfer tests completely, but the law enables those to take place. It is not a question of entire freedom of manoeuvre.
There is no point in somebody grandstanding on an issue, which then risks it simply being overturned at a later stage. I want to see a situation in which the two transfer test organisations come together and produce a single test. That is something that would ease the burden on parents and students. However, I am also realistic enough to know that getting agreement in the Chamber on selection is unlikely to happen.

COVID-19: Pupils' Mental Health

Pat Catney: 4. Mr Catney asked the Minister of Education what measures he will put in place to support the mental health of pupils during the COVID-19 pandemic. (AQO 779/17-22)

Peter Weir: A range of measures is being delivered through the education restart well-being project in direct response to the COVID-19 pandemic to support the well-being of staff and pupils. Those include an Education Authority (EA) online portal of resources, which is available to schools with information on supporting learners, leaders and staff; the EA Youth Service "Youth Online" resource where children and young people can access information, advice and support; and a well-being helpline, facilitated by the Educational Psychology Service, which provides support to schools as they respond to a range of needs amongst their pupils.
Subject to business case approval, £5 million of education restart well-being project funding will also be allocated directly to schools very soon. By receiving their own allocation, schools will benefit from having the flexibility to use that money to provide health and well-being support for their pupils and staff and draw down on a range of programmes. I have also recently launched the Engage programme through which £11·2 million has been earmarked to enable all primary and post-primary schools to provide additional teaching support for pupils, particularly for those from disadvantaged backgrounds.
The Member will be well aware that in dealing with that issue, there is funding for academic catch-up and for well-being, but in many ways in schools, those are inextricably linked. In addition to that specific COVID-19 support, my Department is also working collaboratively with the Department of Health, the Public Health Agency, the Health and Social Care Board, the EA and other Government Departments to develop a framework for children and young people’s emotional health and well-being in education. That is progressing well and we are working to complete the framework by December 2020.

Pat Catney: I thank the Minister for that very comprehensive answer and I welcome the additional funding. However, given the impact that COVID has had on our children, how soon can that funding be allocated so that teachers, as first responders, are able to help as quickly as possible?

Peter Weir: I expect it to be signed off very quickly. The business case has been made and the money is there and will be able to be applied. One of the initial elements, from an academic and from a well-being point of view, was that even if everything was ready to run from 1 September, that would probably not have been the most prudent way to spend the money anyway. There will need to be a certain level of individual assessment in schools of where children are. Indeed, it may well be that individual children in a particular class will have reacted differently to COVID, so we cannot just make natural assumptions.
There is no doubt that, as well as the academic catch-up that is needed, many children will have been adversely impacted and we will move to provide that level of support. We are conscious that, according to the business case, we will be able to allocate a specific amount of money directly to schools, which can then decide where the best interventions should be.

William Humphrey: I thank the Minister for his answers so far. I welcome the new and increased funding that he mentioned and the "joined-upness" that he has explained to the House around the issue at hand, which is hugely important and which is growing in our community. In order to ensure that that "joined-upness" works to its maximum, does he agree that it is important that the Department works not just with schools but with specialist community organisations such as Extern, Greater Shankill Alternatives and Integrated Services for Children and Young People's greater Shankill team in my area to allow young people who are working with those organisations to be reached?

Peter Weir: I have already met those organisations and I am happy to meet others that provide direct, front-line support to schools, such as charities and other third-party agencies. As well as the £5 million that has been allocated to education restart, an additional £6·5 million will go into mental health and well-being in schools.
If we are to maximise the value that we get from that, we will need to look at the expertise that can be provided by third-party organisations. They can be part of a cocktail of measures to lever in additional resources. It is also about what is able to be delivered on the ground, because one size will not fit all. The response needed for a six-year-old in one location will be different from that for a 16-year-old in a different location, and, indeed, sometimes different responses will potentially be needed in a single class.

Patsy McGlone: That concludes the period for listed questions. We now move to 15 minutes of topical questions.

SEN Failings

Chris Lyttle: T1. Mr Lyttle asked the Minister of Education whether, following yet another profoundly concerning report, he will take the opportunity to apologise to children with special educational needs (SEN) and their families, who his Department and its arm’s-length bodies are systemically failing to support. (AQT 451/17-22)

Peter Weir: It is clearly the case that I am very sad to see any child being let down. I welcome the report because it shines a light on what needs to happen. Indeed, there will be movement fairly soon on the issue of the SEN framework. At the moment, I am restricted by procedure in dealing directly with the detail of the report or, at least, commenting directly on it. It is due to be discussed at a PAC hearing on 15 October, and the protocol is that there should be no comment on the detail of the report ahead of that, so that limits the response that I can give. Collectively, we need to make sure that, as we move forward, the best possible services are provided to all our children, particularly the most vulnerable and those with special educational needs.

Chris Lyttle: A key goal of the Department of Education is to support all children to achieve their potential. Does the Minister not accept that his Department has failed to achieve that goal and is failing children with special educational needs and their families across Northern Ireland?

Peter Weir: As I have indicated to the Member, I will have to wait until we get to the PAC hearing before I can discuss some of the findings in the report. I am not in a position to fully answer the Member, and I am sure that he knows that full well. In trying to advance the issue of special educational needs, a consultation will be launched very shortly on the SEN regulations and framework documents. Given the need for an additional level of support as we move ahead, that can make a change. Can we as a society do better in providing support for those with SEN? Yes, we can, but that may mean that all of us need to make some tough choices in connection with that.

Curriculum: Clarification

John O'Dowd: T2. Mr O'Dowd asked the Minister of Education to assure the House that we will follow a curriculum here, whether Shakespeare or Heaney, that enriches our young children from all sectors of society, especially because although schools have been reopened for about a month, they are still waiting for full clarification on changes to the curriculum and qualifications, which causes him concern that we are in danger of following the English curriculum, not least an idea of Michael Gove’s from many years ago that everybody should study Shakespeare, albeit that Shakespeare was OK, in that he sold a few plays and a few books, but we should not forget that we have Joyce, Wilde, Beckett, Behan and Heaney as examples of curriculum materials that our schools could be using. (AQT 452/17-22)

Peter Weir: To paraphrase Shakespeare, methinks the Member doth protest too much in relation to that.
[Laughter.]
We are in a position where the CCEA has drawn up advice on examinations and the curriculum, and there has been engagement on that this morning with, for instance, the trade union sector, so we are reaching a fairly close point. I think that, literally as we speak, a group of school principals as stakeholders are being consulted by our officials on what the CCEA has brought forward. That will enable a final position on the curriculum to be brought forward to me later on this week for either agreement, amendment or change. It is an issue that will move on very quickly. It is important that all actions taken be fully to the benefit of all pupils in Northern Ireland. That might mean that we can diverge at times, but we also have to make sure that there is a level of portability with our qualifications. The key element with any of our qualifications is to make sure that no student in Northern Ireland is disadvantaged. The curriculum will have to reflect some of the changed circumstances that are there, and I hope to be in a position where that becomes very clear very soon.

John O'Dowd: I am in danger of misquoting, but I think that it was Beckett who said that education is the lighting of a fire, not the filling of a bucket. I welcome the fact that the Minister is hoping to use materials from across the board. We have our local curriculum that has served our pupils very well. Everything is open to revision and review, but it is important that you, as our Minister, deliver a curriculum that meets the needs of our children.

Peter Weir: I do not disagree with the Member. Maybe we should end there before we start simply quoting literary sources at each other. We have a rich tapestry of literary sources from across various jurisdictions. With regard to the curriculum, the role of any Minister is to set the broad direction and set the parameters for examinations. For example, if there are opportunities to say that, given the current circumstances, there can be a particular relaxation to the way that the courses work to allow for the fact that we cannot expect every student to study the full content of what would have been there in normal years, given the level of disruption. I am also conscious of the detail. We have seen it happen, in various jurisdictions, with Ministers intervening to say, "You should be studying x or y," or a type of Big Brother quality in saying "So-and-so is a preferred writer" or "So-and-so is banned". We are not in the world of banning Boris Pasternak, for instance, as would have happened in the old Soviet Union. There also has to be professional judgement on the detail of what is in the curriculum. The Member did not try to do this when he was Minister. It is not really the role of the Minister to micromanage that but to give a broad opportunity and a wide range of options. The fact that our curriculum is less prescriptive sometimes than others works well in our benefit. You are right that, broadly speaking, the curriculum serves our pupils well in Northern Ireland.

Schools: Major Works Projects

Paula Bradshaw: T3. Ms Bradshaw asked the Minister of Education, after thanking him for his letter outlining his Department’s engagement with St Joseph’s College in South Belfast about its campaign for a new build, whether the protocol for the selection of major works projects to proceed in planning financial year 2020-21 has been released or will the protocol from 2019-2020 be used. (AQT 453/17-22)

Peter Weir: The protocol gives a little bit of flexibility around the exact timing. When there is a new call for major works, I have indicated that that will happen during 2021. That is not prescriptive that it will happen before 1 April 2021, but it will happen during the calendar year of 2021. The sooner we can get that the better. I have indicated that I want to look at the protocol because, while there was an important merit in facilitating where amalgamations were taking place, it did leave others behind; St Joseph is a good example of that. I am sure that everyone can raise schools from their constituencies. One of the problems was that although a large number of schools scored points because of very poor and inadequate physical infrastructure, in some cases, they were overtaken by schools that got points for amalgamation. That is unfair. I have indicated on a number of occasions that I want to look at the protocol, particularly the scoring mechanism for amalgamations. Either it should not form part of a new call or, alternatively, perhaps its scope could be reduced.

Paula Bradshaw: Thank you. Minister, you will be aware that in South Belfast, over the next few years, there will probably be about 800 to 1,000 new homes, primarily in the Castlereagh South area. Where are you around area planning for post-primary provision there?

Peter Weir: Broadly speaking, the area planning process is being stood up again. During the pandemic, we had to look at all aspects within the Department, particularly from a policy point of view and what had to happen immediately. There were also difficulties in simply moving ahead with processes because area planning, by its nature, quite often involves a wide range of consultation and meetings. That was not appropriate during the pandemic. While the pandemic is still very much with us, there is a desire to start to reboot area planning. The wider strategic area planning group is due to have its first reconvened meeting in late October.
It will try to look holistically at the needs of an overall area. That may well lead to development proposals, and those individual proposals, from a legal point of view, would need to be looked at separately by me. There is a limited extent to which I can prejudge particular areas, but it is clear that we need to ensure that what provision there is reflects the broader demographics and needs of young people in the area.

Patsy McGlone: Mr Bradley is not in his place.

Transfer Test: Opt-out Consequences

Mark Durkan: T5. Mr Durkan asked the Minister of Education whether those schools that took the wise and brave decision to opt out of the transfer test this year, including St Columb’s College and Thornhill College in Foyle, will be required to go through the development proposal process. (AQT 455/17-22)

Peter Weir: As a result of correspondence that we have received, the Department has sought legal advice on whether that is necessary, and we are waiting for a final position on that.

Mark Durkan: I am sure that we all look forward to seeing the outcome of that. Does the Minister recognise the potential chaos that the situation would cause for schools and the massive stress it could cause for children?

Peter Weir: I understand that people need to be given as much certainty as possible. Schools have a level of entitlement to decide what methodology they use. Within the bounds of legal authority, they can decide what the selection criteria are and how they order that. Obviously, schools need to operate within the boundaries of legal competence. I do not want to prejudge any legal information that is received. Clearly, that will determine whether that counts as a significant change that would require a development proposal.

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women Report

Caoimhe Archibald: T6. Dr Archibald asked the Minister of Education whether he has considered how to implement paragraph 86(d) of the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) report, as required under the Executive Formation etc Act 2019. (AQT 456/17-22)

Peter Weir: We are working with organisations on the detail of that. I do not have paragraph 86(d) before me, so I will write to the Member with more information. I presume that this is in relation to relationships and sex education (RSE). We tend to differ from other jurisdictions in that we do not try to micromanage what is specifically in the curriculum. Materials will be provided, but schools will have a level of authority, in line with their ethos, on what is in the curriculum. We try to impose on the curriculum as little as possible.

Caoimhe Archibald: Paragraph 86(d) says:
"Make age-appropriate, comprehensive and scientifically accurate education on sexual and reproductive health and rights a compulsory curriculum component for adolescents, covering early pregnancy prevention and access to abortion, and monitor its implementation".
How does that match up with schools having the ability, under their ethos, to monitor what they teach?

Peter Weir: The point I make is that, in the vast bulk of areas in Northern Ireland, we do not have a compulsory curriculum. We have a range of options that schools can use. I am conscious also that conflict could take place between the legal permissibility of schools and legislation. Obviously, the legislation was passed at Westminster, not by this House. We must bear in mind the level of flexibility that will be there for schools.

Patsy McGlone: Time is up, and I invite Members to take their ease while we change the top Table.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Speaker's Business

Alex Maskey: Before I move back to the Order Paper, I want to return to the point of order that was made yesterday by Mr Colm Gildernew, who drew my attention to an allegation that Mr Allister had made about him in the Chamber last week. I have since reviewed the Official Report of the debate in question. Mr Allister made an allegation that he then withdrew and apologised after an intervention by Mr Gildernew. It was right that, having made an untrue allegation about Mr Gildernew, Mr Allister should have corrected the record and apologised for that. However, Mr Allister then somewhat undermined his apology by persisting in referring to where Mr Gildernew had been and speculating about whether that was appropriate. For the record, Mr Gildernew has clarified that he was in Dungannon Park for a walk with his family.
It is unacceptable for Members to make incorrect and unsubstantiated allegations about other Members. However, given Mr Allister's subsequent comments, I want to be clear that it is inappropriate and unwise to speculate about Members' conduct and invite inferences to be drawn. I remind Members that, when we have debates, the focus should be on the specific issue under consideration. Debates should not be used as an opportunity for innuendo or unwarranted personal attacks; instead, they should be conducted with good temper, moderation and respect.
That should be a cautionary note to all Members to be careful and clear about their facts before making allegations on the Floor of the Assembly. It also highlights that, if Members get something wrong, apologising with sincerity and moving on is the best and most constructive thing to do. I now consider the matter to be closed.

Executive Committee Business

Fisheries Bill: Legislative Consent Motion

Debate resumed on motion:
That this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of the Fisheries Bill, as introduced in the House of Lords on 29 January 2020, and consents to the Fisheries Bill being taken forward by the Westminster Parliament. — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]

Steve Aiken: I support the legislative consent motion.
For somebody who has spent an awful lot of his time at sea one of the most dispiriting things over the years has been the diminution of the small and getting smaller Northern Ireland fishing fleet and the number of times that we have seen fishing boats having to be hauled up on a beach and burned because of decommissioning policies led by the common fisheries policy. I readily accept that I would have been a Remainer, but one of the areas that always gave me concern was the common fisheries policy. Indeed, the fact that, under that policy, the majority of productive waters that are left around Europe are in the United Kingdom's exclusive economic zone out to 200 miles from its coast underlines the degree to which other areas in the Mediterranean or off the French and Spanish coasts have been heavily overfished.
The move by those fishing vessels into UK waters over the years has led to a point where close to 60% of the English quota alone is owned by foreign vessels. That demonstrates how badly skewed the common fisheries policy has left things.
Less than three decades ago, it was a proud industry that people were quite happy to become involved in and go to sea with. It was an industry that supported fishing vessel building yards in Portavogie, Ardglass and other places, but they have all gone. The reason that they have gone is the common fisheries policy.
As we look at what is happening with environmental issues and the flow of fish stocks around the United Kingdom, we can see that areas that have not been under the control of Britain have been, particularly where the EU has been involved, overfished. That happened to such a degree that we reached the point where the North Sea, previously one of the largest areas for cod, had been virtually fished out. However, it was not fished out by British fishing vessels; it was fished out by the likes of the Danes despite over 40% of their catch being in British waters. What does that mean for Northern Ireland? It means that an industry that should have been built, developed and grown has shrunk. Many of the families who were involved in fishing left the industry and did so because they saw no future.
One of the things that we can see as we approach the end of the transition period is that, with the end of the common fisheries policy, we can start to think about an appropriate future for the fishing industry. An industry for all the people in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England, where people can go back to their traditional skills and manage them effectively. There are some specific issues. We hear an awful lot that, when we leave the common fisheries policy and decide to do away with the London Convention, even though we will have access to the fish, we will not have access to the market. I have got news for the people in Europe, because everywhere else has been fished out. If the people in Europe want the fish, they will have to get it from the source, which is UK waters. So, there is a future for a United Kingdom fishing industry.
There are other significant issues, and we have heard about the importance of conservation. Only by managing what is, in effect, one of the largest areas of stewardship will we get to the point where fish stocks are being maintained and can be fished sustainably for a considerable period of time so that we can build an industry. We also hear that within the legislative consent motion we do not have issues that address the crews of fishing vessels and the importance of more of our own mariners wanting to go to sea. Quite frankly, that is not the case. As is the case with the Merchant Marine and across all aspects of seafaring, we should be concerned about the welfare of those who want to make their livelihoods by fishing at sea. The fishing associations in Northern Ireland are rightly concerned about that, and the Minister will be taking a very close interest in what we are trying to achieve as the LCM goes through.
We have the opportunity to help rebuild the Northern Ireland fishing industry from a very low level. I never again want to see our fishing vessels being pulled up on the beaches and burned for some form of common fisheries process. I never again want to hear the words, "decommissioning for the fishing industry". I want to see us building a fishing industry that is sustainable in Northern Ireland, but it has to be done in partnership with the Scots, the Welsh, the English and those fishing boats from the Republic of Ireland that are willing to abide by the rules. The deep seas off the 200-metre line, in which the Irish Government invested a lot for the sake of the fishing vessels from Killybegs, have been fished out. There is nowhere for them to go, except for the United Kingdom's exclusive economic zone. Therefore, there will have to be a relationship; there will have to be a partnership. However, it has to be a partnership in which people realise that the inequities of the common fisheries policy have been put behind us. More importantly, we need to look to the future. I trust that the Minister, and the Members of this Assembly, will do that.

Maurice Bradley: Mr Speaker, I apologise for not being in my place earlier.
It has been mentioned several times today that members of the Agriculture Committee have expressed disquiet about the lack of scrutiny time available for the LCM and that there are many concerns about it. However, whilst negotiations are ongoing between the EU and the UK, all focus should be on getting the best deal for Northern Ireland.
No legislation will give everything to everybody; that does not exist. This LCM is no different. However, it has been broadly welcomed by the fishing industry, and I fully support its passage through the Assembly today. A failure to agree the LCM would create a great deal of uncertainty for our fishermen. It would mean that we would not be signed up to fisheries objectives — objectives that are vital in maintaining sustainable stocks and vital in seeing those stocks not just maintained but growing in number.
As an island, the sea is at the heart of our culture, well-being and prosperity. Our seas support our daily lives, providing multiple resources and services, including food fish, shellfish, energy, coastal protection, tourism, leisure and recreation opportunities, physical and mental health benefits, and cultural, heritage and learning experiences. Failure to support the LCM would leave us without the power to make fishing policy and no power to make grant support to the industry or to regulate it. The Bill provides powers for DAERA to introduce schemes of financial assistance for our fishing and agriculture industries in order to improve the marine and aquatic environment that we all consider so precious and to develop them to be even more sustainable. That will replace the European maritime fisheries fund.
It is my understanding that local fishing fleets offer full-time employment to 686 people and part-time employment to a further 168. On 31 December 2020, Northern Ireland leaves the common fisheries policy, and the Bill provides us with a legislative framework to develop new policies. I support the LCM.

Sinéad Bradley: As a Member for South Down, I recognise the significance of the LCM for the livelihoods of the many families that rely heavily on the success of the fishing industry and for the economy in Kilkeel and Ardglass.
Those who supported Brexit promised great things. The removal of the common fisheries policy was heralded as a great win that would remove the shackles of European standards and regulations from the industry in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland fishing industry — I refer in particular to the fishing families from Kilkeel and Ardglass — was promised a new dawn. Mr Harvey repeated that promise here today and presented the LCM as the launch of that new dawn. Well, if it is, I have to say: what a damp squib — or squid, in this instance.
There was no opportunity to consider the LCM at Committee, and there was zero opportunity to consider any amendments. Indeed, this first step involves the Department setting off on the back foot, with promises already of supplementary legislative consent motions. The first step into this new dawn appears more like a Department that has been tripped and pushed into an action. A Tory Government that have repeatedly put their needs first, regardless of the consequences for this place and its people, appear to be forcing the Department's unprepared hand — hence the need at the outset to speak of supplementary work.
On 31 December 2020, the UK will no longer be part of the common fisheries policy, if there is no trade deal. The LCM proposes a legislative framework that will fill that void; I recognise that. It is a framework that rejects the House of Lords' notion that sustainability should be a key driver in building any UK policy. It often jars with me that the fishing industry is presented as a community that cares nothing for environmental protection and the preservation of their industry: nothing is further from the truth. Fishing families in Kilkeel and Ardglass go back for generations, and there is nobody more invested in ensuring that the industry is sustainable for the generations to come. That is why they deserve and need so much more than an LCM or a framework that gives no acknowledgement to their needs. It is a further framework of promises.
Our local fishing industry requires a reputable set of standards, a guarantee that they will not be set aside to facilitate other regions of the UK and an assurance that their catch and produce has access to a market that will command a fair price. The lack of process in the delivery of the LCM and the obvious lack of any such assurances in its contents do not fill me with any confidence. I am not sure that I can yet see the new dawn that has been promised. For the sake of constituents in South Down who are heavily reliant on the success of the outworkings at Westminster and this LCM, I genuinely put myself forward to say, "I hope you prove me wrong".

Mike Nesbitt: I welcome the opportunity to say a few words in the debate not least as a Member for Strangford, home to Portavogie, one of our three fishing villages. Portavogie is home to the Northern Ireland Fish Producers' Organisation (NIFPO). I was keen to hear what NIFPO thought of this legislation. It is interesting to note that their basic response was, "It was fine until the politicians got their hands on it". However, I think that they are broadly content, although they have submitted some technical reservations to the Committee.
I am happy to support the LCM, despite the uncertainties that have been well articulated by the likes of Patsy McGlone and Matthew O'Toole. Probably "uncertainty" is the word that sums up the reaction of the fishing fleet in the four years since the Brexit vote. We recognise that the fishing fleet felt that they could be the poster boys, as they put it, of Brexit. The UK Government, faced with a country that had divided pretty much down the middle in the referendum, needed evidence that Brexit was a good thing and needed a quick win. The obvious quick win was a fishing fleet that, freed, as they saw it, from the shackles of the European Union's despised common fisheries policy, would thrive and flourish in an obvious way and in a short timescale. Of course, that has not happened.
There have been further obstacles such as the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC), which adversely impacted on the ability to attract foreign nationals to the workforce by refusing to acknowledge trawlermen as skilled workers. That was despite the fact that, a couple of years ago, MAC acknowledged in a survey that 53% of the workforce in the fishing fleet in Northern Ireland was made up of non-UK nationals. How delightful to be able to acknowledge that, today, MAC has changed its mind. The Migration Advisory Committee has said today that it now recognises that trawlermen are skilled workers and acknowledged that the fishing fleet workforce should go on the shortage occupation list. I spoke to Harry Wick, the chief executive of NIFPO, and, to use a colloquial expression, today you could not annoy him. He feels that that unlocks huge potential for the fishing fleet.
I welcome the Bill. I welcome the fact that it has the eight objectives outlined by the Minister in his opening remarks. There should be no hierarchy within those objectives. The people who man our fleet are responsible fishermen who understand the importance of sustainability and will work with that while trying to grow their industry. I also welcome the commitment to statements that should tell us how the fleet should interpret those eight objectives and how it is expected to implement them.
We have objectives and a commitment to a statement, but we must acknowledge that there should be an overall purpose to the Bill, which should be to make fishing and the fishing fleet more attractive to the people of Northern Ireland, who used to populate it but have found that it has become less attractive in recent years. We have to deal with the uncertainty, implement the objectives and come out with the statements, and I hope that the Department will work with the industry on the co-design and co-production of how we implement the Bill if it goes through on today's LCM. Surely, nobody knows how to grow the industry better than the people who run it in a responsible manner that looks to a bright future.

Clare Bailey: The Green Party welcomes the Bill as framework legislation that presents us with a tangible opportunity to do things differently in fishery management at the very time when our seas are under more pressure than at any other time in human history. I thank the Minister for his notification of the UK Government's proposed amendments to the Bill, and I look forward to DAERA being able to work towards making the Bill better for Northern Ireland, should those amendments pass. I also welcome the real environmental ambition in the Bill and truly hope that we use the opportunity to put sustainability first as a means to drive ocean recovery and resilient and thriving coastal communities. I also thank the Chair of the AERA Committee for the comprehensive report that he gave on behalf of our Committee.
I speak on behalf of the Green Party, specifically about the need for sustainability to be enshrined as a primary objective in the Bill and for accurate and robust monitoring and enforcement. For all the potential that the Bill holds to create truly meaningful change to the way in which we manage our fisheries, one thing is clear to me, and it is vital that we get it right: our seas and oceans are sick. They have absorbed the bulk of the warming that has resulted from climate change. We have seen them becoming more acidic and less oxygen-rich. We are witnessing in real time the first death of an ecosystem caused by climate change, with mass coral-reef bleaching occurring around the world and reports indicating that there could be more microplastics than zooplankton in our oceans.
Locally, we are doing no better. According to the UK marine strategy, the UK is failing on 11 out of 15 indicators of marine health. Only 58% to 68% of our fish stocks are fished at sustainable levels, with our quotas consistently being set above scientifically recommended sustainable levels year after year. Less than 1% of fishing trips are currently monitored at sea, making it impossible for us to get an accurate picture of exactly how much fish we currently take out of the seas. We know that our fishing stocks are not secure. UK waters are among the most heavily exploited in the world. The UN intergovernmental panel report on biodiversity indicates that commercial fishing has been the biggest cause of marine biodiversity loss globally in the last 50 years. Overfishing also prevents us from tackling climate change because it damages crucial marine habitats that store carbon and distribute food chains throughout the ecosystem.
I welcome the inclusion of the fisheries objectives in the Bill. It is encouraging to see the inclusion of ones such as the sustainability objective, the precautionary objective and the ecosystem objective. I particularly welcome the inclusion of the climate change objective, obviously, given the current climate emergency and the role that ocean recovery has to play in tackling that problem. It is, however, regrettable and somewhat alarming that the UK Government have stripped out the House of Lords amendment that would have made sustainability the prime objective in the Bill. That amendment had been supported by a coalition of environmental NGOs and major retailers, and it had cross-party support in the House of Lords. If the Bill is truly to create a sustainable fishing industry and marine environment, sustainability must be enshrined in law. I note, however, that there is no legal obligation to achieve any of the Bill's objectives. Without legal duty, I worry that the Bill will fail to deliver on its ambition. Boris Johnson's Conservative Government promised in their 2019 manifesto that they would deliver a "legal commitment to fish sustainably" — there is another Boris quote for you — yet the same Government have now taken active steps to remove sustainability as the prime objective in the Bill. If that is an indication of the direction of travel post Brexit, it does not inspire confidence, if there ever was confidence to be had in this UK Government. The Bill is ambitious: that much is clear and very welcome. To achieve that ambition, however, the sustainability objective must be in place as the prime objective; otherwise, the wide range of opt-out provisions in the Bill is set to allow trade-off objectives, with the potential for short-term economic or political decisions that lead to overfishing and to a long-term decline in fish stocks.
The accurate recording of catches is vital to managing our fishing activities and to ensuring the favourable conservation status of fish stocks. I was therefore disappointed to see the Public Bill Committee yet again tabling amendments to remove cross-party House of Lords amendments and taking away the amendment that would have ensured that remote electronic monitoring was rolled out for all vessels fishing in UK waters, despite the benefits that that would entail. REM is a robust and cost-effective tool for supporting sustainable fisheries management. As it stands, less than 1% of activity at sea is monitored. The benefits would be numerous: helping to end overfishing through better monitoring; improved stock assessments; the setting of quotas in line with scientific advice; and the provision of valuable data on the capture of marine wildlife such as seabirds and dolphins, essential to achieving the ecosystem objective.
The House of Lords EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee has recommended that urgent steps be taken to put in place robust mechanisms to monitor and enforce compliance. It has stated that REM is the only way in which to monitor compliance with the landing obligation. It is only natural for crew on vessels to be concerned about how that would affect their privacy, so it should be pointed out that REM with CCTV would be triggered by motion sensors on gear when catch is landed, as opposed to being 24/7, and that there would be no monitoring in any living quarters. I should also point out that CCTV is mandatory in abattoirs across the UK. REM would ensure that our fisheries sector too is monitored to ensure robust enforcement and fully documented catches. I take the opportunity to call on the Minister to consult on the roll-out of REM with CCTV across the NI fleet.
We have heard much about the failures of the quotas designated under the common fisheries policy and of that inflexible system. Whereas the majority of UK fishing boats are small-scale, the small-scale fleets hold only 2% of the UK quota. I hope that the Bill provides the opportunity to rectify that and to produce more equitable systems. We know that coastal communities have lost out on employment and investment as a result of the lack of access to fishing opportunities. We urgently need to reform and rebalance fishing rights so that smaller, more sustainable vessels get their fair share of the quota and so that fishing can be a viable way for families and communities to make a living.
We know that fisheries management plans will set out how we are to achieve sustainable fish stocks.
Among the issues with the common fisheries policy are its inflexible approach and its inability to take local context and environments into account. Those concerns are keenly felt by many fishing communities. That is why I am pleased to see that DEFRA has confirmed that it plans to amend the Fisheries Bill to allow Northern Ireland to have jurisdiction over management measures in our offshore waters so that the specific needs of our local marine environment can be addressed.
Marine protected areas are intended to safeguard vital marine ecosystems and create a healthy marine environment. A well-managed network of MPAs will align with objectives to ensure that our fisheries are managed sustainably. I am calling upon the Minister to introduce robust management plans for all designated marine protected areas to ensure the long-term survival of habitats and species.
In conclusion, although proper time to scrutinise the Bill has been missing, as has been pointed out —.

Matthew O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Clare Bailey: Certainly.

Matthew O'Toole: The Member mentioned marine protection, which will include protection in inland waterways, aquaculture and sea loughs. Clearly, there is a huge issue there in relation to our two big sea loughs — Lough Foyle and Carlingford lough, a cross-border lough. Is the Member concerned that the lack of reference to the Ireland protocol in the Bill creates uncertainty around how EU regulations are applied and the quality of regulation and conservation in those places?

Clare Bailey: I am very concerned about the moves from the UK Government. For a way forward on an all-island basis, we need to be pushing, with the North/South Ministerial Council, the common frameworks across the island to build better relationships. That is something that can be done quickly, and should be done immediately. The Member raises many issues. Thank you.
If we are to have a fishing industry in the future, the Bill should have environmental protections at its heart. It is vital that the sustainability principle is made the prime objective of the Bill and that REM is introduced as an affordable, reliable way to monitor catches if we are truly to put sustainability at the heart of our fishing policy going forward. I hope to see those amendments returned to the Bill as it completes its journey through the Commons and the Lords.
As we head towards the end of the transition period, we await a much-needed deal with Europe. The EU is the main market for what our fishers catch, and the prospect of having no access is worrying. It threatens jobs, incomes and communities that are already under stress. Our fishermen need a deal, and they need it now as a matter of urgency. The Green Party is happy to support the LCM, and we look forward to a robust Bill that tackles the needs of Northern Ireland.

Alex Maskey: I call on the Minister Edwin Poots to conclude and give a winding-up speech on the motion.

Edwin Poots: I am glad to respond to the debate, and I thank Members for participating in it. The Chairman spoke at length. He started off with issues around the Bill being rushed and the lack of time in which to consider it. Unfortunately, that was unavoidable. We have done our best, in a very short time, to get this done before the end of transition to provide the Committee with as much time as possible in the circumstances. Thankfully, the industry has expressed support for the Bill, as Mr Nesbitt pointed out. It is interesting to note that the industry supports it, but a number of Members opposite — Members who, apparently, represent fishing areas, and some who come from fishing areas — do not support it. Interestingly, they do not support the industry on this issue.
It was suggested by Mr McAleer that the Bill lacked detail. It is a framework Bill; it gives us enabling powers. Enabling powers allow us to develop issues. Ms Bailey has just pointed out issues that she would like to see developed. She is right. That is how you do it. You take the framework Bill, and you build upon it. Ms Bailey and others can make their argument for how things could be developed going forward.
The interesting thing is that we, the House — the Members behind me and the Members in front of me — will have the opportunity to make those decisions. Previously, we had no role to play, because it was all done over in Brussels. We had one MEP, Sinn Féin had one MEP, the Ulster Unionists had one MEP and the SDLP did not have any. A great influence you would have there, amongst 800 MEPs. You can actually make the decisions on behalf of your own people, and you are saying, "Oh, no, no. We don't want it. This is a terrible Bill".

Mervyn Storey: Will the Minister give way?

Edwin Poots: Sure.

Mervyn Storey: On that, I was interested to hear what Clare Bailey said and the point that she made very well in relation to the overfishing of the stocks. That happened during our time in the European Union. Who was it that was coming in and pillaging our fish stocks? The very same people who we are glad to say goodbye to in the European Parliament, who wanted to have our fish and to have it on their terms. The Minister is absolutely right that, from now on, it should be on our terms.

Edwin Poots: The Bill allows us to deal with the marine environment. It allows us to actually deal with the fish quotas and the new rules and the future funding. Without the Bill, we do not have any of that.
I heard some Members complaining that it gives the Secretary of State too much power over quotas. How was it done before? I remember, when the deputy First Minister was the Agriculture Minister, she used to head off to Brussels in December, just before Christmas. It was not a shopping exercise — more of a fishing exercise. She went over to Brussels to try to get a bit of quota for our fishermen. In December every year, there was a haggling session over fishing. It was supposed to be about science. Let me say that science might have been applied at the start of the process, but I think that, by the end of it, there was not much science applied. There was a haggling session every year, and our Ministers from the UK Government were over fighting the case for us. I think that we stand a better chance of dealing with Brandon Lewis than dealing with that.
Members have said that there will not be much more fishing opportunity in the Irish Sea, and they have tried to quote officials. I think that, if they were quoting officials right, they would be saying that there will not be as much opportunity to expand in the Irish Sea as there will be in the North Sea and other parts of British waters. Nonetheless, they gave France the opportunity to take 20% of the nephrops in our waters — France?! It has a huge boundary of water around it for fishing purposes, but here they are allowed up into the Irish Sea. Why? Because France are powerful negotiators in the European Union. Then they will not let us catch cod. Every year, they tell us, "Oh, the cod stocks haven't recovered. Oh, you can't catch any cod in the Irish Sea, because the cod stocks are terrible." Cod is a fish that is commonly eaten here and commonly used here and which used to be caught by our fishermen for our people. What do they do? The cod actually migrate down the Irish Sea from north to south, and we cannot catch them, but the French and Spanish super-trawlers are waiting at the bottom of the Celtic Sea, and they are catching all the cod.
Nobody need tell me that our leaving the European Union is a terrible thing for fisheries. If anyone had driven round the fishing harbours during the time of the Brexit referendum, they could not have failed to notice the numbers of fishing boats that actually had flags up supporting the leaving of the European Union. If you want to see an industry that has been destroyed as a consequence of European Union regulation, fishing is the best example of it. Go to Ardglass, Portavogie and, to a lesser extent, Kilkeel and see the wooden boats with the flaking paint or the rusting steel boats. It is not a pleasant sight. It is not because those people are not prepared to work hard; they are. It is not because those people were not prepared to go out to sea and catch the fish and bring it in and land it and do all that needs to be done. They were prepared to do it, but they were not allowed to do it. Our fishing industry has been emasculated by the common fisheries policy. People who suggest otherwise should be ashamed of themselves.
Mr McGlone, for example, said that we did not have a very good record when it came to the science. How dare he? I wish that he were here. How dare he say that we do not have a good record? We have abided by what has been imposed upon us. That is why our fishing industry has been on its knees whilst France, Spain, the Netherlands and Denmark, with their super-trawlers the size of football pitches, have been pillaging the seas. Our small 10-metre boats have been bringing in very modest amounts of fish, and observing the science that is there.

Clare Bailey: I thank the Minister for giving way. Are we getting a guarantee from him that he will set the legislation to ensure that overfishing does not happen in our waters in the future and that quotas will be set by scientific evidence?

Edwin Poots: The good news for Ms Bailey is that there is an adequacy of fish in the Irish Sea for all the communities who fish in it. For people in the west of Scotland and England, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, the Isle of Man and Wales, there is an adequacy of fish to go after without overfishing. Therefore, we do not need to give 20% of our nephrops stocks to France. There is a significant uplift to be had without overfishing, which will benefit our fishermen in a very substantial and significant way. We need to take account of that.
I will add that the sustainability objective has to be paramount. We need to protect the environment. Several objectives relate to that; the sustainability, ecosystem and precautionary objectives, which I mentioned. Those are three of the eight priorities that we have set, which all relate to the environment. We want to ensure that we have the right balance and there is not the complete hierarchy of one objective, but sustainability is critical to our role.
Mr Blair also mentioned remote electronic monitoring, as did Ms Bailey. I agree that it has a place in fisheries management. It is just one tool. It could be a tad draconian to impose it on all vessels, particularly those that are under 10 metres. Therefore, it is important that we have that devolved flexibility to chose from the range of management tools and measures, and pick those that are best suited to our fleet. Let us not just say that remote monitoring is out — it is not; it is something for us to consider — but it is for us to consider with a series of other tools and work with the fishing community, who are responsible custodians of the seas and have been over the years.
Philip McGuigan referred to the film 'Salem's Lot'. If he wants to refer to films, he could have referred to "the EU chainsaw massacre" on our fishing ports, because it has absolutely destroyed our fishing industry. I have to say that I was stunned that Ms Ennis, in particular, was so robust against the Bill because the consequence of not approving the LCM will be that there is no funding to support fishing communities in 2021. We will not be able to provide that support, grant aid or licensing. Therefore, what do we do? What is Ms Ennis's policy? If we do not approve the LCM, how will she support the fishing industry? I am happy to give way to her if she wants to tell us how she will support the people in Ardglass and Kilkeel in her constituency. I am supporting them here by supporting the Bill. She is not supporting them by going against it.

Sinéad Ennis: Show us the money.

Edwin Poots: As I said, I will give way. I will hear the Member if she has a better idea or proposal. However, just to oppose it is actually to damage the communities that she purports to represent.
As I said, we have powers now through the Bill to designate MPAs in our offshore zone. That policy would be to the good of the environment. The Secretary of State has agreed to work with us to amend the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. It is not within the scope of the Bill to do that.
However, the Bill will open up the opportunities. We have established our own Bill team to review our own Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 and we will be working with DEFRA to gain those powers. It is important to demonstrate that this is not all about the economy. There is a big environmental impact, for the good, as a consequence of supporting this Bill.
In terms of the suggestion that the Secretary of State has too much power, I reiterate that he does not have any more power than the EU, yet those who were objecting were happy for the EU to have those powers. We are benefiting today from having issues devolved to us, not all issues, but a considerable amount of issues devolved to us.
There was a complaint, "Oh no, the Secretary of State has too much power". He does not have the power that the European Union had. Therefore, that objection does not have any standing. We want to preserve our devolved responsibilities. For years, we have successfully been working in partnership with the Secretary of State, Scotland, Wales and fisheries. There is no reason why that successful partnership cannot continue.
Mr O'Toole, and I am glad that he has returned, complained about the lack of detail in the Bill. As I explained, it is a framework Bill that gives us the power to develop the detail. For example, the detailed policies about fishery statements and future funding regimes will be subject to full consultation with the Committee. That will be a decision for us and the detail will be a decision for us, the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland: it will not be a decision for some civil servant in the European Union. That is something to be welcomed.
Mr O'Toole referred to migrant labour; he knows full well that that is a reserved matter. It is not a policy for this Bill. It is an entirely different matter. I thank Mr Nesbitt for bringing the information on the MAC to the House. That is positive news and will be appreciated by all in the fishing fleet.
I terms of the voisinage agreement, I appreciate the valuable instrument that it has been for fleets here and in the Republic of Ireland. However, shortly after becoming Minister, I mentioned the issue of us fishing in Irish waters and Irish boats fishing in our waters, to the Foreign Minister Mr Coveney. His reply was, "I cannot do business with you on this. It has to be done through the European Union". It has to be done through the European Union, a sovereign state. Sorry, I do not have the power to talk to this devolved Administration Minister about doing a reciprocal arrangement that has existed for years and ensuring —

Steve Aiken: Will the Minister give way?

Edwin Poots: — yes, I will in a moment — that the Irish fishing fleet can continue to fish in our waters and that our people can still go down to Dundalk Bay. Mr Coveney cannot do anything on that because he does not have the power to do that. He has given that power to the European Union and we are getting that power back.

Steve Aiken: Thank you very much indeed. Bearing in mind what the Speaker said earlier on the importance of accuracy, maybe the next time that you are talking to Mr Coveney you may want to point to the fact that, under international law, the fishing zone of between three to six miles is the exclusive preserve of the sovereign state. Mr Coveney was either being inaccurate or did not understand the fishing rules, which is probably more appropriate.

Edwin Poots: That would probably be a long conversation. I will maybe leave that for you to have with him, Mr Aiken.
Mr O'Toole claims that the Bill is silent on aquaculture. Unfortunately, he has demonstrated that he has not looked at the Bill very closely. If he had, he would not have suggested anything like that because the Bill mentions aquaculture no less than 90 times. The objectives and other provisions of the Bill also relate to aquaculture where specified. The Bill does provide powers for the Administrations to introduce schemes of financial assistance for fish and aquaculture industries, and it includes provisions related to fish, health and diseases that specifically relate to aquaculture. Aquaculture is well covered within the Bill.
I welcome Mr Aiken's comments. They were thoughtful and helpful, and I appreciate that. A series of Members made supportive comments. Mr Harvey, Mr Bradley, Mr Nesbitt, Ms Barton, Ms Bailey and Mr Blair responded in a very positive way.
Without this Bill, we will not have the suite of legislation and the appropriate powers to support the industry via grants post 1 January 2021. That will put our industry at a competitive disadvantages to that in the rest of the UK and the EU. I ask Members to think very carefully and to reflect upon that. I have spoken very clearly and directly to Ms Ennis, for example. Is that where she wants to be in the representation of the people in her constituency? I certainly would not want to be in the position where I would not have the ability or facility to provide that necessary support because I had voted for a political reason.

Declan McAleer: Will the Minister give way?

Edwin Poots: Yes.

Declan McAleer: On the question of support, the Minister will accept that, between 2014 and 2020, the fishing industry here in the North benefited from the EMFF to the tune of £18 million. He will also accept that the Bill includes no reference to funding at all. In fact, in the White Paper and in leading up to the Bill the British Government made reference to the industry taking shared responsibility and making a greater contribution to the costs. That suggests to me that we are coming out of the CFP, which provided funding under the EMFF, and the British Government really have no intention of putting funding towards fishing at all, yet we sell 86% of our fishing stock away from the North of Ireland, with over 40% going to the EU. There is a focus on support, but I am not convinced that that support is going to be there.

Edwin Poots: The Member knows full well that funding would not be part of the Bill. We have requested at least the same money as we received previously under the EMFF.
I will make this very clear in the House, and I hope that it goes back to Europe. The notion that some people have put forward from the European Union negotiating side, that there should be a tariff put on fish caught in the Irish Sea and landed in this part of Ireland, is entirely wrong, and they need to back off. They need to back off and not be making silly suggestions that fish caught a few miles off our coast and landed here would be subject to tariffs. We are part of the single market as a consequence of the protocol, so what is the issue? As part of the single market, we should have the same ability to sell fish landed here in that single market as anywhere else.
I do not agree with aspects of the protocol; that is very well known, but on that aspect, if they are to be honourable and do the right thing by Northern Ireland, which they claim to have done for years and want to do going forward, this just will not be an issue. Northern Ireland fish will have full access to the markets in the European Union.
In any event, as Mr Aiken quite rightly pointed out, a lot of the fish stocks are exhausted. The Mediterranean, for example, is heavily populated by tuna. Many of the fish caught in the Irish Sea are not available in other part of the European Union. Therefore, they are desirable. Our nephrops are desirable, not just in the European Union but right around the world, because of the high quality of the material that our fishermen are catching.
I'll tell you what: I will take the chance that I will catch it and sell it, as opposed to standing back and allowing someone else to come in and catch it and sell it when they did not have any right to it in the first place. It is a bit like opening the door of your house, and saying, "Come in and take what you want from the fridge". At some point, you have to say enough is enough.
I am thankful that we are coming out of the common fisheries policy. It was not good for our fishing fleet and it was not good for our fishing industry. This legislative consent motion allows us to move forward. It will allow for a new dawn and a move away from a very dark night that we have spent under the common fisheries policy.
I hope that in a number of years when people take a drive around the coast and go into Ardglass, Portavogie and Kilkeel, they will see harbours that have boats that are modern, well-equipped and safe, and an industry that is thriving as opposed to one that has been allowed to deteriorate under the common fisheries policy.
I commend the Bill. It is the best opportunity for us to move forward. We have no other options. I asked Members that if they had options, to state them, and they were strangely silent. It is easy to criticise something, but in the absence of an alternative, I do not see much merit in that criticism.
I appeal to Members from all sides of the House to support the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:
That this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of the Fisheries Bill, as introduced in the House of Lords on 29 January 2020, and consents to the Fisheries Bill being taken forward by the Westminster Parliament.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McGlone] in the Chair)

Committee Business

Standing Order 110

Linda Dillon: I beg to move
Leave out Standing Order 110(1) and insert

"(1) Unless the Assembly previously resolves, Standing Orders 110-116 (‘the temporary provisions’) apply in the period from 31st March 2020 – 31st January 2021."

Patsy McGlone: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to 30 minutes for this debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes.

Linda Dillon: On behalf of the Committee on Procedures, I am pleased to bring this motion to the House today, which proposes amending Standing Order 110 relating to the temporary provisions of Standing Orders 110 to 116. I will briefly provide some background to the motion.
On 25 March 2020, the Committee on Procedures considered and agreed a motion to amend Standing Orders and make urgent changes to usual Assembly procedures as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. That came as a result of the Business Committee and the Chairpersons' Liaison Group identifying several solutions to both Assembly business and Committee operations to allow the Assembly to continue to carry out its functions whilst adhering to public health advice and keeping Members and staff here as safe as possible.
On 27 March 2020, the Assembly agreed the Committee motion by way of cross-community support. The agreed motion introduced the temporary provisions of Standing Orders 110 to 116.
Standing Orders 110 to 116 provide for a number of changes to Assembly business. They include provisions for a reduction of Members required in the Chamber in light of current circumstances and the need to socially distance. They also make a new provision for voting by proxy. In particular, they make provision for the number of proxy votes carried out by a Member to be taken into account in the collection of voices that precedes a division.
Importantly, for Committee operations, the temporary provisions provide for enhanced remote working practices. Any member of a Committee, including the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson, may attend remotely. They also provide for Committee members to delegate their vote to another member of the Committee, including the Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson. In addition, and perhaps most importantly, they provide for a Statutory Committee to make decisions without meeting.
Similar provision is made for Standing Committees, with particular provision made for the Audit Committee, and to maintain, so far as is possible, the existing structures of the Business Committee.
That is a brief overview of the temporary provisions, and that is why the motion has been brought to the House today. These provisions are temporary and cease to have effect from 30 September, which is tomorrow.
At its first meeting of the session on 17 September 2020, the Committee considered a number of available options. Those were: do nothing and let the provisions cease to have effect, which would be from tomorrow; agree a motion to extend the provisions for a set period and consider any amendments at a later date; or agree to extend the provisions for a set period with amendments.
Given the little time that we had left before the provisions ceased to have effect, the Committee agreed to extend the provisions to 31 January 2021 and to use that time to consider any amendments. I would like to point out that, since these temporary provisions have been in effect, the Committee has kept them under review and has not been made aware of any necessary changes. The Committee will continue to review the provisions if an extension is agreed today.
I am sure that Members will agree that the Assembly and Assembly Committees have been able to continue their very important roles in what has been, and still is, a very challenging period.
Finally, following a request by the Speaker's Office to consider the instances in which proxy voting would be retained on a more permanent basis and how that might be reflected in Standing Orders, the Committee has made a number of initial inquiries. The Committee wrote to all Members and independent Members to seek their views on proxy voting. The Committee also made enquiries of other local legislatures to seek their views and practices. A number of Members have responded, as have other legislatures, and I am pleased to inform the House that the Committee has agreed to include proxy voting in its forward work programme. I hope that that brings the House up to date with the motion.
On behalf of the Committee, I will end my comments by reminding Members that the current temporary provisions cease to have effect after tomorrow. We are still in a very precarious situation with the COVID-19 pandemic, and it is imperative that we as an Assembly do what we can to protect not only ourselves and the staff in the Building but our families when we return home. On behalf of the Committee, I commend the motion to the House.
I will now speak as an MLA and will keep my comments brief. This provision is for a set period until 31 January 2021. That is appropriate, and it should not last indefinitely. We have learned much about what can be done and what is possible. For many years in this place, we were told what was not possible. Finally, we see that, when something affects everybody, suddenly it is all possible. In particular — I am going to say this — it was the men in this place, because I suggested that we could have proxy voting in order to get more young women into the Chamber and to deal with maternity leave and with those who were off on long-term sick leave, which has impacted a number of people in the House. However, that did not affect enough people for serious consideration to be given to the changes that could be made. We now see what can be done and what is possible. I certainly hope that, into the future, we have open minds about how this place can be run.

Sinéad Bradley: I take this opportunity to thank the Clerks and the Committee, who very speedily put together these proposed changes to Standing Orders, which, thankfully, were adopted. I also echo the sentiments shared here today by the Committee Chair, Linda Dillon, that there is much in those changes that is definitely worthy of consideration as we finally — sooner rather than later, hopefully — enter a post-COVID-19 world. It is worth noting that there are not only family-friendly outcomes to the changes to Standing Orders but environmental outcomes. I certainly had to put a lot less diesel or petrol in the car for a significant period. That should not be taken lightly when you multiply that up by the number of Members. We need to set standards for other places.
I welcome the changes and the fact that we will have the opportunity to work through them in Committee via the forward work programme.

Rosemary Barton: My comments will be very brief. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you know, we are in unprecedented times. Coronavirus knows no bounds and, unfortunately, appears to be here in a second wave, which is why Standing Order 110 now needs to be amended to allow Committee business to proceed over the coming months.
Initially, the temporary provisions under Standing Order 110 were agreed by the Assembly for a period up to 30 September. Being mindful of the continuing pandemic, it is essential that Standing Order 110 be amended and extended to 31 January 2021. The Ulster Unionist Party supports the motion.

Thomas Buchanan: I welcome the opportunity to conclude the debate on the motion to amend Standing Orders. I thank everyone who took part in the debate. As outlined, the amendment comes to the House as the current temporary provisions cease from tomorrow, 30 September. The provisions were originally agreed by the Assembly on 27 March. They were introduced not only to keep Assembly business and Committee operations running but to keep everyone safe during the pandemic.
I acknowledge that it has already been placed on record, but I would again like to commend the Business Committee, the Chairpersons' Liaison Group, Legal Services and the officials for reacting so quickly and bringing forward the solutions back in March this year.
Over the last few weeks, we have seen a rise in the number of people being affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Hospital admissions are on the increase and further restrictions have been made to our everyday lives. Therefore, it is important that we make decisions, especially in this Chamber, that will protect life and protect the people.
The motion amends Standing Order 110 to allow the provisions in Standing Orders 110 to 116 to be temporarily extended until January 2021. We all hope, trust and pray that this virus is also only temporary. and that, one day, we will get back to the position where we no longer need to have these temporary provisions in place. It is essential, therefore, that we, as an Assembly, do all that we can to protect one another, to protect the staff and to protect the Building users.
A few people spoke during the debate, and I want to thank them for their support. The Chair of the Committee set out the overview, outlined the reasons for this being brought forward and talked about the things that can be learned. If the pandemic has taught us one thing, it is this: things can be done in a different way over a very short period. It did not take months to put in place some of the provisions that we are now using for our meetings, for voting arrangements and for all other things in the House. It shows that, where there is a will, there is always a way. Maybe that could apply in a lot of other areas in the House. Where there is a will, there is always a way forward, and we have seen that during this pandemic.
I thank everyone who took part in the debate for their contribution, and I look forward to their support. I trust that the House will support the motion.

Patsy McGlone: Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.
Question put and agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):
Leave out Standing Order 110(1) and insert

"(1) Unless the Assembly previously resolves, Standing Orders 110-116 (‘the temporary provisions’) apply in the period from 31st March 2020 – 31st January 2021."

Patsy McGlone: Members can take their ease before we move to the next item of business, which is the Adjournment debate.
Motion made:

That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone).]

Adjournment

School Estate: Upper Bann

Patsy McGlone: In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Mrs Dolores Kelly to raise the matter of the school estate in Upper Bann. The proposer of the topic will have up to 15 minutes.

Dolores Kelly: I assure my colleagues from Upper Bann and, indeed, my colleague from the Alliance Party that I do not intend to take the full 15 minutes, but I welcome their attendance, and particularly that of the Minister, for the debate. I think that we will all be on the same team in championing the needs of our schools in the Upper Bann constituency.
Fundamentally, we all recognise that, historically, school maintenance and our school estate have been underfunded for several years.
Consequently, we are throwing good money after bad in trying to find solutions when a much greater level of investment is needed. Certainly, patching is not sufficient.
During this debate, I want to highlight some common threads. In preparing for the debate, I reached out to all the schools in the Upper Bann constituency and examined the responses. I found that there were a number of common themes in those responses. I will begin by taking those and using the examples from the experience of some schools in relation to the particular circumstances that some of them find themselves in.
I will start with the backlog of maintenance. There is a particular worry around trying to apply the measures to mitigate COVID restrictions. I ask the Minister to give an indicative time frame on catching up on some of those minor work schemes that have been agreed but which have not all been followed up on because contractors have been able to come on site. By way of example on the cost of backlog that some schools are experiencing with their assessed needs, Lurgan Model Primary School in the Brownlow area has a £900,000 maintenance backlog. That is just one primary school in the Lurgan area. So, we are not underestimating the challenge that the Education Minister has before him in convincing the Finance Minister to part with some cash to help those schools. An example of a problem is that some schools have no hot water in some of the classrooms. Some of the mobile classrooms, which are quite old, are 20 square metres smaller than the new mobile classrooms that are supplied, and that is another worry for school principals.
I have written recently to the Minister, and hopefully he will have received my call for his assistance and intervention with Tullygally Primary School. The Education Authority occupies one of the buildings. For a number of months now because of lockdown, it has had its staff working from home and has said that they will be working from home for the foreseeable future. The school principal of Tullygally, Kirsty Andrews, and I have both written to the Education Authority asking for it to vacate the building so that the school would be able to use that building to help with some of the COVID mitigation measures. The Education Authority has refused to do so, so I ask the Minister to take that under consideration. The Minister will also know that development proposals have been put on hold as a consequence of some of the COVID work. Can he give a time frame for when those proposals might reopen?
The Minister will be particularly familiar with the ambition of St John the Baptist's College in Portadown to be able to teach at GCSE level. That development proposal had got through to the Department, and, as I understand it, it was going to the education committee at the Education Authority. However, because there were no meetings, that has been placed on hold, yet parents are canvassing for support from me and other representatives to get some surety around their children's future. That would be of comfort and would enable plans to progress.
Road safety is another recurring theme, both with dropping children off and with collection points. Earlier decisions were made to cut the number of school patrols. Last week, I attended Bridge Integrated Primary School in Banbridge and saw for myself the risks associated with the fact that it is situated in an area where there are a lot of new developments. There are five new housing developments in the immediate vicinity, and more than 418 children now attend that school. The entrance is quite narrow, and parents start to gather a good half hour or more before collection time and there is a build-up of traffic. Some children from P6 upwards want to be a bit more independent and walk home, but they have neither a road crossing nor a school crossing patrol person to assist them.
My colleague Nichola Mallon recently awarded some schools in the constituency funding of £2 million to introduce a 20 mph limit. However, this has to be looked at again, and there must be collaborative working across the two Ministries to look at the particular needs of some schools. Interestingly, in Banbridge, just around the corner, Abercorn Primary School has two crossing patrol people at the bottom of the road, yet one cannot come round the corner to assist at Bridge Integrated Primary School. Maybe the Minister will have an opportunity to examine road safety there.
Other issues include long-running problems with blocked drainage systems, which is a particular problem for St Francis' Primary School in Lurgan, as is traffic management. Millington Primary School in Portadown has a leaking roof. It has been that way for some time and had several repairs over the years, but these have had no real consequence. It needs a new roof. That is the only thing that will help.
During discussions in the Assembly before lockdown, I asked the Minister whether there could be devolved decision-making on some small repairs, such as light bulb replacement, where a school principal could make the decision rather than having to go through a lot of bureaucracy and red tape. Some of this is, I think, about a new way of doing things. It is about greater delegation and devolving the decision-making on small jobs, as opposed to having to apply, two or three people then coming to look, accepting that the bulb has blown and agreeing to replace it. A bit of common sense is needed when it comes to small-scale repairs.
On safety and security, many schools, as the Minister will know, have quite a role to play in the safeguarding of children and preventing the access of unauthorised adults to the school estate. They must also ensure that younger children, in particular, are safe while on school premises. St Francis' Primary School in Lurgan, for example, which has more than 810 pupils, needs a fob system to be fitted to its entrance and exit doors. The school also has a faulty heating system, which leaks, and mobile classrooms that are 20 square metres smaller than the newer ones provided nowadays.
I think, from my discussions with principals, that there is a disconnect between the Education Authority and some schools when it comes to timely responses, decision-making and turnaround times.
Over the last few months, I have been working with St Ronan's College in Lurgan, for which my colleague John O'Dowd, when Education Minister, announced a new build in 2015. We expected and anticipated that that would be in place and that the school doors would be open for 2019-2020. There has been a lot of toing and froing between the Planning Service and Roads Service. It is interesting, and I am delighted to say that, as a consequence, I believe, of knocking a few heads together, asking a few Assembly questions and having this debate, we will see, by Friday, the concerns being ironed out, and I hope that a recommendation of approval for the new build will go to the October meeting of Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council. St Ronan's College, being an amalgamation of three former post-primary schools — St Mary's High School, St Paul's Junior High School and St Michael's Grammar School — is, of course, one of the largest post-primary schools. The school is quite an ambitious project, and it is important that we see the new build move forward at pace, not least because young people are currently educated between two sites, which is a nightmare for pupils and, indeed, the management of the school. In addition, it is, I think, fair to say, following a recent meeting with a police superintendent, that policing the site is a security nightmare.
Before I finish, I want to touch on the integrated sector. Portadown Integrated Nursery and Primary School is busting at the seams and does not have a site for a new build, which is its ultimate aim. However, some integrated school principals have said to me that the authority and system under which they work, even for small projects in respect of their budget, is set against them in their trying to get work done. That is a particular concern for them.
These are all stresses. Many people now recognise that teaching is no longer only about imparting knowledge. Teachers have to be the social worker, the policeman, if you like, in the school playground, the budget-maker, the financial decision-maker, the crisis counsellor and all sorts of things. Our teachers need our support to remove some of those stresses and strains to try to get the best educational and learning environment for pupils and students
I will finish here. I had a lot more to say but I know that other Members will want to have their say. I am also interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

Patsy McGlone: We now move to the other Members, each of whom will have around six minutes in which to speak.

Diane Dodds: I thank my constituency colleague Mrs Kelly for bringing the debate to the Chamber. It is very important, and I speak in it in my capacity as an MLA for Upper Bann.
Like other Members will probably do, I begin by paying tribute to the staff and leadership of schools across Upper Bann for their commitment to providing a first-class education to pupils during this extremely difficult time. Our schools adapted to provide home learning when circumstances dictated, and this has won the gratitude of parents and guardians across Upper Bann.
I would also like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the Education Minister for the work that he has done in collaboration with schools to ensure a safe and timely return to classroom teaching. The importance of ensuring young people's return to school cannot be underestimated. The benefits of classroom learning are well-documented, not just for education but for our young people's heath and broader life skills. Returning young people to the classroom was a significant piece of work, and I commend the Minister, teachers, principals and parents for the work that they did together to ensure this. Since taking my seat in the House, I have had the pleasure of engaging with many schools and pupils across Upper Bann, and the return to classroom learning has been very warmly welcomed.
I wish to take this opportunity to raise with the Minister a number of issues around the school estate. Before I do that, I want to put on record my thanks for the number of positive announcements for schools in Upper Bann that have been made in recent weeks, first in relation to nurture units. I am a long-time advocate for this model within our schools. Nurture is a key element of supporting our children and young people to make the best start in life and help to improve their educational outcomes. The Minister's investment of up to £4 million for the creation of new, and maintenance of existing, nurture groups is good news. I was delighted that Carrick Primary School and St Anthony's Primary School in Upper Bann were included among the 15 new nurture units to be created. I am in no doubt that this funding will have a transformative impact for the pupils who will benefit from the service. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an update on the work being carried out to ensure that pupils in Carrick Primary School and St Anthony's Primary School can benefit as soon as possible.
I also want to highlight the recent £40 million announced by the Minister as part of the second call to the school enhancement programme, which is aimed at delivering a modern, fit-for-purpose school estate. The Minister has my thanks for listening to the compelling cases made for Hart Memorial Primary School and Clounagh Junior High School. This will transform the school estate on both sites, bringing much-needed and long-overdue improvements. Since this announcement of funding, I have been working with other schools across Upper Bann to prepare for a possible third call for applications. I encourage the Minister to look carefully at the proposals put to his Department by Donard Special School and Abercorn Primary School in Banbridge, and also the needs of Portadown College.
Those schools provide an amazing education to the young people of the area and continue to provide a vital role in the community. The need for improvements to those schools cannot be overlooked, and I invite the Minister to visit them to see the work that they do.
I know that the Minister has funding constraints. However, I welcome the proposal for the third call of applications for the school enhancement programme.
I thank the schools and parents who have been in contact with me in recent days. First, Craigavon Senior High School: there can be no doubting the need for investment in Craigavon Senior High School. It is unacceptable for the children attending the senior high school to make do with lesser facilities. The previous proposal in the Education Authority's development plan for the future of the school received a widespread rejection from the local community. As the Lurgan campus of the senior high school is the only non-selective Key Stage 4 school in the Lurgan area, it is vital that an acceptable solution is found, and it is incumbent on the Education Authority to deliver an outcome for the senior high school that commands the support of the local community. The Dickson plan has proved successful in our local community for over 40 years and commands strong community support. I invite the Minister to reaffirm his support for that plan and for parental choice.
Secondly, St Ronan's College: much progress has been made by the school in preparation for its new build. Having spoken with the school principal last week about the issues around planning —.

Patsy McGlone: I ask the Member to draw her remarks to a close, please.

Diane Dodds: I will draw to a conclusion. I am glad that the issue is being sorted out very quickly.
Quality education is vital for our young people, and quality facilities will help to improve their chances of receiving that education. I commend the Member for bringing the debate.

John O'Dowd: I thank Dolores Kelly for bringing the debate forward. I declare an interest as the vice chair of the board of governors of Lismore Comprehensive School, and I sit on that school's project board for the new build.
I come at this from an angle of experience of trying to deal with the maintenance backlog and with the new school build programme that is required out there and trying to ensure that, when decisions are made, they come to fruition. I have concerns. This is not a matter solely for the Minister, and it dates back to my time in the Executive. The public sector is far too slow in delivering building programmes across a wide range of issues, and there is a variety of reasons for that. One is that the system feeds itself. I often recall how, after making an announcement in the Chamber about a programme of school builds, I was questioned on it by the Assembly and the Education Committee, and, several months later, I asked for a progress report, only to be told that officials were carrying out a business case to see whether my decision was the right decision. I politely went back and said, "Wait just one second. That is not your purpose. Your purpose is to deliver the decision that I announced to the Assembly". Of course, we need business cases and to make sure that public funds are properly spent, but the system should not feed itself.
On one occasion, I asked for a copy of the guidance notes on business cases. On a Thursday evening, they arrived in my office: two large, thick folders with guidance on how to deliver a business case. I looked at the folders, and they sat and looked at me for a while
[Laughter.]
I scanned them and came across one word that I went back to the permanent secretary with: "proportionate". That is what is has to be: proportionate to the task, to the announcement made and to the benefit that it will bring to the children, teachers and community to have a new school build. That is where we have to get to. Collectively, as an Executive and in our scrutiny Committees, we have to get to the point where we, as a public-sector body, deliver public-sector projects in a reasonable time.
Mrs Kelly referred to the delay to St Ronan's, which has been unacceptable, and the delay to Lismore, which has also been unacceptable. However, I commend the Department of Education staff, who, in both instances, have worked tirelessly with the schools, and the other agencies, such as the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) and the Education Authority, that have also worked tirelessly with the schools to get the projects nearly over the line. I welcome Dolores's comments about heads being knocked together in order to get reports sent around for transport etc. That is a welcome development, and it will help to move the project on.
One of the best developments over recent years in delivering the new school estate — Upper Bann has benefited from it in a number of announcements that the Minister has made recently — is the school enhancement programme, with builds of up to £4 million. If you invest £4 million, especially in a primary school, you have practically built a new school. Four million pounds will deliver a major rebuild for our post-primary schools. I have often encouraged schools that are lobbying for complete new builds to look at the school enhancement programme, because it delivers significant changes to the school estate. As I said, schools across Upper Bann have benefited from it and have seen the difference that it has made for their young people.
I will also mention St John the Baptist Primary School. That is a case where a development proposal benefits not only the local community but the education system and does not require an investment. It is a major school at the minute. It has significant buildings that are not being used. I encourage the Minister to open area planning again and make sure that the relevant EA committees and his own structures are meeting and that decisions start to be made on development proposals, particularly on St John the Baptist Primary School in Portadown.
This is not connected with capital, although capital may be required, but I welcome the announcement of the nurture units. The nurture units are a fantastic development in our education system. During my time at the Department of Education, we were slow at the start in getting them off the ground for a variety of reasons. I think that there was some suspicion of them in officialdom at the time. However, the benefits of the investment in them were seen, and there should be more investment in nurture units. They will deliver long-term changes for our young people.
I want to mention the controlled sector in Lurgan. There are plans to bring three post-primary schools in the Catholic sector in Lurgan together at St Ronan's College. Why was that decision made? It was made because it was dealing with all the children in the Catholic sector. The same decision needs to be made about the controlled sector in Lurgan. A proposal needs to be brought forward that meets the needs of all the children in the controlled sector, and that then has to move to a building programme to meet the needs of all the children in the controlled sector in Lurgan. I am not getting into a debate on selection, but, to date, I have seen proposals that meet the needs of selection. There are ways round that that will meet the needs of everyone. Imagination and leadership need to be shown for the controlled sector in Lurgan.
Minister, as you know and as is our job, we will continue to lobby for the variety of schools that are out there. Whenever you listen to announcements from the British Government and others, you find that capital is available in the time ahead.

Patsy McGlone: I ask the Member to draw his remarks to a close.

John O'Dowd: I support the Minister in bringing forward proposals that ensure that the public sector builds more quickly and builds more.

Doug Beattie: I thank the Minister for being here. It is nice to be in the Chamber with the five Upper Bann MLAs to talk about something that is important to us all; it really is. I sometimes wish that the five of us could get together. John, you could maybe buy the beer, if you are up for it.
We can all talk about our pet projects, and we all have them, whether we realise it or not. They may be about the controlled sector, the maintained sector, the selective sector and the non-selective sector and the primary and the post-primary sector. There are issues across Upper Bann. Some of them are normal and are issues that you would expect to see as property gets older. Some of them are issues that have been generated when there was no requirement to generate them. The maintenance budget and how it is delivered could be looked at and fixed. I thank Dolores for bringing this forward; I really do. I am glad, and I hope that we all speak with the same voice because what we want is a school estate for Upper Bann that is good for all our pupils no matter their academic ability.
I went to St Ronan's last week and met the principal and some of the governors and some of the teachers. It is an absolutely fantastic school, with 1,600 hundred pupils and 200 staff over two sites. They have had their planning application in since 2018, and we have now got to the stage where we are having to squeeze it in by October because of bats settling in one of the sites that they need to demolish. We should never have got to that last-minute hitch, but I believe that it has been overcome by a degree of pragmatic thinking, in that it will go before the planning committee next month and any outstanding issues and caveats can be added to the planning approval. That is good news for St Ronan's, and I commend them for taking a strong, visionary look at what they were trying to produce for their pupils and for the maintained sector in that area.
Of course, I also know St John the Baptist's College well. I worked closely with Noella when they went through that change of name from Drumcree College to St John the Baptist's, and Noella had a real vision of what she was trying to achieve. Not being able to develop the development proposals is knocking back the imagination that we want our principals and teachers to have to help our schools. I can say the same about Portadown Integrated Nursery and Primary School, and I can talk about Clounagh Junior High School, the Hart Memorial Primary School and Banbridge Academy.
There are many issues, but you will know, Minister, that I have really hammered the drum about the Lurgan campus of Craigavon Senior High School, and you will know that I will not apologise for doing so. I do not think that the children there are being given the service they deserve. There was a critical review of that site in 2016 — four years ago. It has no playing fields, so children wishing to do after-school activities have to be bussed into Portadown. The pupils have to eat their lunch between parked cars — eat their lunch between parked cars. They share some of the facilities with the Southern Regional College, so the kids have to move around that campus escorted by teachers. There is oversupervision. When they go to PT, they have to leave and walk to other facilities dressed in their PT kit. It creates stress, fright and vulnerability for the pupils. It is truly awful, and it needs to be addressed. It can be addressed with some imaginative thinking, while retaining the Dickson plan. If people want the Dickson plan, they can have it and we can retain it, but imaginative thinking can improve the lot of those kids. To leave it for another 12 months just would not be right.
I am a product of a failed education system to a degree. I went to Craigavon Senior High School, the only two-year school in the whole of the United Kingdom. There is no other two-year school in the whole of the United Kingdom. I went to it, and I was disenfranchised when I went there. I did not feel that I had an identity, and I left school at 16 with absolutely no educational qualifications. I do not mention that as a badge of honour; I still do not have them. It is a failing as much on my part as anything else, but part of that is because it was a school for only two years. We need imaginative thinking, but what is going on on the Lurgan campus of Craigavon Senior High School is just not right. Those pupils deserve better, and that is done not by destroying a system but by being imaginative in creating something better for them. I hope that we can do that, Minister, and I hope that we can drive that forward. There are solutions there, and the people of Lurgan have brought those solutions forward. What we have to do now is listen to them.

Jonathan Buckley: It feels as if I am winding up the debate as the last Member for Upper Bann to speak; I have never spoken in an Adjournment debate before. I thank Dolores Kelly for bringing this important topic to the House.
We can never talk about education enough in this place. It is the cornerstone of constituency life and it is the heartbeat of our constituencies. Whether it is my party colleagues or the representatives of other parties, everybody has the right to champion the needs and aspirations of our young people and, indeed, the requirements of our school estate.
I also thank the Minister for coming along today. As has already been mentioned, there have been some great announcements for Upper Bann in relation to nurture units and the school enhancement programme. The Minister has seen us through a very difficult time with COVID-19 and we pay tribute to the work that he has done in his engagement with school principals, parents and children as they try to adjust to these very different and surreal times.
I would also like to thank school principals and parents for their resilience throughout COVID-19; that cannot be said enough. Teachers went out of their way to provide education for our young people when, 10 months ago, that would not have seemed possible. They improvised and were innovative in their solutions and we thank them for doing so. It is only right that we come to the Chamber to champion teachers' needs and address some of their concerns. Dolores Kelly has, quite rightly, outlined many of the issues that face the school estate.
I am a proud product of the Upper Bann Dickson plan. I attended Richmount Primary School, Clounagh Junior High School, Craigavon Senior High School and Lurgan College. Many people who look at the system do not understand it when you talk about the plethora of schools that you went to, but I can say, heart in hand, that the Dickson plan was a system of education that I was proud to be part of. There are many thousands of people across the Upper Bann constituency who are playing their part in many walks of life because of the educational provision through the Dickson plan.
The school estate in Upper Bann is vast. There are 66 schools in the constituency with over 24,000 pupils. We know that the problem is not going to be solved overnight. Whether they have held the Education portfolio or not, every Member here understands that there is a difficult balance to be struck in managing the school estate within the realms of a limited capital resource budget. We get that, and we understand it, but that does not stop us from calling out what we see as massive failings in the school estate, which date back over a long period.
There is no doubt that the school estate in Upper Bann is in need of significant investment. It is important for us to point out that there are buildings that are beyond their sell-by date. COVID-19 did a lot to show that to the wider public. Quite rightly, Mrs Kelly outlined some of the challenges, whether in relation to mobile facilities, classroom sizes or toilets. We have seen how unfit those buildings are for their educational purpose and it is to be hoped that, in the days ahead, we can start to address those problems.
It is only right to give some examples, but I know that the Minister will, probably, elaborate on some of them in his remarks. I am thinking in particular of Portadown College and Lurgan Junior High School, which has been talked about in relation to works and new builds since I was at that school 10 years ago. Those plans were knocked out at the gateway stage, but the need for work to be done in those schools is only increasing, whether that is through school enhancement programmes or major capital works; those problems need to be addressed.
Craigavon Senior High School has been mentioned today. Mr Beattie talked about the educational failures of the system, but as somebody who attended that school, I can say that it was a fantastic school, as were its teachers. I can only say that it suited me at that time and I felt that the teachers were best able to cater for my needs so that I could go on and excel after that. I pay tribute to the teaching staff at Craigavon Senior High School who, throughout hard and uncertain times, whether on the Portadown campus or the Lurgan campus, stuck by their pupils and were always at the forefront in championing their needs.
I also want to think about King's Park Primary and Nursery School. Again, perhaps the Minister might want to make some comments about that school. I go back to Mr O'Dowd's comment about the time taken to make decisions, particularly in relation to resource capital builds in the school system. Those decisions take far too long. We know that the need is there. The need is there from the moment that an initial call is made, so for it to be in the system for six years, seven years or longer is simply not good enough. While the buildings are bad when they are first talked about, they are even worse by the time the pupils who were taught in them leave.
Maybe the Minister will outline when the next major capital call will come. There is no doubt about the serious need for investment in the system, be it major capital investment, school enhancement programmes, minor works or, indeed, the school maintenance budget, as has been mentioned. I know that the Minister understands the issues, and I look forward to working with him and, indeed, colleagues from Upper Bann in trying to address those issues and provide an educational school estate that is fit for purpose and delivers Northern Ireland output that is right at the top.

Chris Lyttle: I thank Dolores Kelly MLA for making use of this Adjournment debate to raise school estate issues in the Upper Bann constituency. It is constructive to get into the detail of some of the issues, particularly those in Upper Bann. However, sadly, we could be having this debate about any constituency across Northern Ireland, demonstrating the scale of the challenge for the school estate across our region. There is, of course, a wide range of issues for schools and education across Northern Ireland at this time: school restart; the health and safety of teaching and non-teaching staff, pupils and parents; the unequal experience of disrupted learning; unequal educational opportunities; educational recovery; mental health and well-being; and SEN provision. As the Department grapples with those challenges, progress on key work streams such as area planning has been suspended. It is vital that we recommence area planning for constituencies such as Upper Bann, which has experienced, as much as any other constituency in Northern Ireland, the consequences of a slow and unacceptably ineffective area planning process. Hopefully, we will hear detail from the Education Minister on how that area planning process will be recommenced.
I would like to mention a number of school settings that have been referenced here today to put them on the Minister's agenda. Tullygally Primary School in Craigavon has been mentioned. It is my understanding that the Education Authority utilises space on the school's premises that, if vacated and released, could potentially enhance the social-distancing arrangements in that school. Craigavon Senior High School, particularly the Lurgan campus, has been mentioned. I was able to meet Councillor Peter Lavery and the Education Authority about that particularly urgent issue. As other Members have stated today, pupils at that site are experiencing an unacceptably unfit-for-purpose school estate, and that must be urgently addressed. It really does beg this question: why has radical action not been taken before now? We hope that we will hear of a radical plan for that site from the Education Minister.

Dolores Kelly: I thank the Member for giving way. I neglected to mention this: would you be surprised to learn that, for a number of years, St Anthony's Primary School has been operating a temporary heating system that is now required elsewhere? Perhaps I could also put that on the Minister's radar.

Chris Lyttle: I thank the Member for her intervention. That is an example of the extreme maintenance issues that that school is facing and, indeed, that a number of schools are facing across Upper Bann and Northern Ireland.
Portadown Integrated Primary School has also been mentioned. It is my understanding that the school was given permission by John O'Dowd MLA in 2015 to increase its pupil numbers, going up to two classes in each age group. However, locating a new site for the expanded school is an ongoing challenge. Many of the classrooms are now modular in nature. It is my understanding that a potential site was identified, but that fell through. Perhaps there are opportunities for revisiting some of the previous proposals.
It is my understanding that Bridge Integrated Primary School in Banbridge, which I think Dolores Kelly mentioned, is facing some road safety challenges. There have been requests for the Education Minister to consult with his ministerial colleague in the Department for Infrastructure to see whether some solutions can be found for the site. I know that it was disappointed to miss out on the 20 mph pilot scheme recently, but, hopefully, the project can be revisited for that school.
Finally, I want to mention the situation at St John the Baptist’s College in Portadown. Sensibly, the Minister granted temporary permission for the creation of a year 11 cohort at the school, which has meant a great deal to a great many pupils and teaching and non-teaching staff at St John the Baptist. It is vital now that the same urgency is granted to the area planning process and, indeed, that expedited consideration is given to the development proposal for GCSE years at St John the Baptist’s College, Portadown. I understand that area planning needs to commence towards the end of October for the development proposal to be released for consultation in time for completion prior to Christmas and to allow GCSE subject choices early in the new year. Any other timescale could create significant challenges, anxiety and distress for the school community, and we hope to hear of urgent action from the Education Minister today.

Patsy McGlone: Thank you, Members. The Minister has up to 14 minutes to respond. There is quite a bit there; he might need a lot more time.

Peter Weir: I may be looking for a hole in the space-time continuum at this rate. I thank the Member for bringing this to the House, all the Members from Upper Bann and the Chairperson of the Education Committee for raising the issues.
I have a few remarks. It is a sign of the extent to which all Members are committed on these issues. I may well have missed one or two but I identified a total of 25 separate issues. Where possible, in my remarks, I will try to address as many as I can. Unfortunately, maybe not in as comprehensive a manner as could be in 14 minutes. I will check the Hansard report and if there are issues that I have not been able to cover — I suspect that there will be — I will write to the Upper Bann Members with a direct response.
As Members have indicated, the importance of capital build in its various forms is critical. That is undoubtedly the case. Members have been around different parts of the school estate in Upper Bann, and others in a wider context. If the capacity and resources were available, we could spend three or four times the amount of money that is spent annually on the school estate, and still be on catch up.
Under the major capital investment programme that was initiated in 2012, eight schools in Upper Bann were announced to proceed to design for major capital investment. Three of those projects, Tannaghmore Primary School, St Thérèse’s Primary School and St Mary’s Primary School in Banbridge have been completed, and those projects have seen an investment of £18·5 million. A further five major projects are progressing: Portadown Integrated Primary School, St Ronan’s Primary School, Lismore Comprehensive, King's Park Primary School and St Mary's Primary School in Derrymore. I appreciate that Members raised specific points. If I have time, I hope to come on to some of those. Those five projects between them will involve a total investment of £94 million. The projects at St Ronan's and Lismore are two of the biggest projects on the Department's capital programme. A major works scheme is also progressing at New-Bridge Integrated College through Fresh Start, and the total cost of that scheme is estimated at around £23 million.
Mr O'Dowd mentioned the school enhancement programme, which has been a very successful innovation due to the fact that, in many cases, the best-fit solution for a school is an extension, a new sports hall or a new science block etc. So far, four schools in Upper Bann have received a total investment of about £7 million on the first call. Projects were completed at Millington Primary School, New-Bridge Integrated College, Ceara School and Donard School. A further six schools have been announced to advance in design under the second call. Design teams have been appointed at Presentation Primary School, Lurgan Model Primary School and Lurgan College, and the teams are working with those schools to develop those plans. Carrick Primary School, Hart Memorial Primary School and Clounagh Junior High School are in the early stages of planning.
There is also the minor works programme. Over the last three years, £10 million has been invested in minor works in Upper Bann. Particular mention has been made of minor works. When the last call was put out for minor works, around 6,000 applications were made. Mrs Kelly raised the question of the backlog, and we are in the position that, of those 6,000, about 600 projects have been completed, and they had to be prioritised.
It was said that in a number of schools, the top priority has been health and safety. There is a downside to that, in a general sense. We live in very different times. When Mrs Kelly and I were at school, that was not the case, though some of the younger Members for Upper Bann may have been at school more recently. There is a necessity for child protection that would not have been there 40 or 50 years ago, and it is right that that is the case.
I will address a range of issues that have been raised. I will try and go through those as quickly as possible. Area planning is being stood up again. Where there is a range of development projects (DPs) already in progress, they had to be suspended because of consultation issues, around the beginning of April, and because of COVID-19. That was not just because it was difficult to hold consultation at the height of COVID, but also because of departmental and EA staff resources. A range of activities were taking place across both organisations that meant we simply had to prioritise because of COVID. To restart the process, the Department has written to all members of the area planning steering group, the overall strategic body, to propose a meeting on 21 October. It is also the case that, where there is a range of development proposals that I think have a particular priority in terms of timing, I think we will move on those as well. .
At St Ronan's College, considerable progress has been made. I understand that, at a meeting yesterday with planners and DFI Roads, agreement on the remaining issues has now been reached. The project's consulting team are working to provide necessary documentation to enable the planning process to be concluded.
A point was raised about hot water in classrooms. The guidance recommends the use of lukewarm or tepid water and soap. Cold water is also effective. Hand sanitiser is not a substitute for handwashing, and it is important that we get that message across.
In terms of the provision of finance, Executive funding has been made available to schools, and that is working its way through the system.
These points are not necessarily addressed in the order in which they were raised.
Mention was made of delegated decision-making. That is something I am very keen on.
I move on to the introduction of new procurement. Mr O'Dowd raised the issues of procurement and construction. There is a wider challenge there, and we will be working with DOF colleagues on that. This is not simply a schools issue. Clearly, there has to be good value for public money from our processes, but we need to ensure that they work in a timely and proportionate manner.
There will be new procurement processes for maintenance and minor works from April 2021, where greater flexibility will be afforded to head teachers for small-scale repairs. That is about trying to introduce a level of common sense, although, as people have often said, common sense is not all that common.
On the issue of catch-up, a considerable amount of work has started. There was a blip, but there has been a small increase in the overall maintenance budget this year, and that can be channelled in as quickly as possible, and works progressed. I have seen sites where that has been happening.
On road safety, provision can be made in capital programmes for school site traffic management. We have seen that happen, for example at Bridge Integrated Primary School where such works are currently under review. The school crossing patrol is not a matter for us directly. It is a non-statutory function of the Education Authority. An assessment is always carried out when a school crossing patrol person retires. The EA has criteria for that.
We have to realise that active transport and children walking to school, is, unfortunately, probably more limited than it was. Perhaps the Member who secured the Adjournment debate and I would have gone to school in a horse and cart, but things have moved on since then.
Mention was made of Tullygally Primary School and, coincidentally, I will be there tomorrow, so you are all welcome. I have asked my officials to liaise with the EA, the CCMS and the school to review the current position and provide me with further information on the specific details of that case.
I want to touch on a number of other issues. Mention was made, I think by Mrs Dodds, of the nurture units. It was very good that I was able to initiate those at Carrick Primary School and St Anthony's Primary School, and they have been a considerable success story. It is not simply about the individual nurture units; it is about getting that level of intervention. The aim is to move on those as quickly as possible and, in most cases, I think that they will be in place from the beginning of January. A small number of schools will require a little bit of adaptation, but I do not believe the schools in Upper Bann would necessarily fall into that category.
Mention was also made of Hart Memorial Primary School. Projects were announced in May and work has taken place to advance the design of the scheme. The Education Authority will undertake site visits in October 2020 to discuss the potential scope for those projects and the pre-qualification tender design process for the design teams will commence thereafter. Based on the programmes for the early SEP2 tranches, we are probably looking at construction there in 2024. I do not have details about Clounagh Junior High School.
I think that mention was also made of when there would be a major capital call. The aim is to have that during 2021. The timing is not quite clear. There is a little bit of headroom with whether that will happen in this or the following financial year, but it will certainly be in the 2021 calendar year. In the third call, I think we will always be looking at trying to get a mix and a level of progress that is there in terms of solutions that will get a mix of capital.
Mention was also made of the Dickson plan. Let me make it very clear: I completely support the Dickson plan and want to see it continue. Allied to that, as was mentioned, there is a strong parental choice for the Dickson plan to continue. Therefore, any actions that I would take would never threaten it and would fully support it.
There are a number of specific issues with St John the Baptist School and I think that the flexibility that was given this year was the right decision. The plans for St John the Baptist Primary School and Craigavon Senior High School will, ultimately, come as development proposals, so I am very limited in what I can say directly about them.
Having been there a number of times, I know that the physical infrastructure of the Lurgan campus is simply not acceptable. If the question is, "Why has something not been done up to this point?", in part, that is because there has been a lack of consensus about what the specific development proposal should be. Ultimately, the actions, in whatever form, will have to flow from the development plan; they will emerge from that. I have to be a little bit cautious on that as I would be the legal authority, but I am fully cognisant of the problems in Lurgan.
I will try to get some details on St Anthony's Primary School's heating system. I do not have those directly to hand.
In January 2020, the Department approved a business case addendum for Lismore Comprehensive School and planning approval is place. The procurement for development and the build integrated study are well under way and an appointment of contractors is imminent. It is expected that the project will move on-site in April 2021 with a two-year construction period.
Kingspark Primary School Lurgan was also mentioned and the major capital investment project to provide suitable accommodation for a 23-classroom base there is progressing. An integrated consultant team was appointed in October 2019. The team has prepared a draft technical feasibility study on all options, including refurbishment and new build. Following advice from planning officials, the report is being updated for submission to the Department. On approval, that report will form the basis of the business case to determine the —.

Patsy McGlone: I ask the Minister to draw his remarks to a close.

Peter Weir: I appreciate that there are a number of issues that I have not been able to cover, but I will write to the Upper Bann Members with full details. I thank Members for both the content and the tone of the debate tonight.

Patsy McGlone: Thank you very much indeed for that, Members and Minister. That concludes our business for today.
Adjourned at 5.40 pm.